Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &c. BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MID-WESSEX WATER BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ALMSHOUSES (INVESTMENT) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have had to give careful consideration to the question whether this Bill should proceed as a Private Bill or whether it should be a Public Bill. The Bill is promoted by the National Association of Almshouses to enable the trustees of any almshouse in the country, who are, or may be in the future, members of the Association, to transfer their funds to a central body which shall have power to invest in equities as well as trustee stocks.
I think that there are two grounds of objection to the Bill proceeding as a Private Bill. In the first place, on the ground of public policy, in that it extends the powers of investment of an indefinite number of trust funds beyond those of the general law. In the second place, on the ground that the Bill is promoted by an association on behalf of its members, the number of whom is not fixed, and could include every almshouse in the country. The Bill therefore is one of general application.
I am therefore ruling that, as a result of the questions of public policy which it raises and the general application of the Bill to all almshouses, this Bill is not proper to proceed as a Private Bill, and it must be withdrawn.

Order for Second Reading discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Variable Geometry Aircraft

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply if a decision has yet been made regarding the future of the Swallow aircraft.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply what inquiries have been received from home or abroad as to the military potentialities of the variable geometry aircraft.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): I have made an agreement with the United States authorities and with Vickers for a joint research programme designed to prove the potentialities and practicability of the Swallow concept of variable geometry. A series of tests and engineering studies will be undertaken, partly at Vickers, partly at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, and partly in American Government research facilities. The programme will make use of the considerable work already done by the Americans in this field. The Government will be contributing part of the cost of the work undertaken at Vickers. Until the results of this programme are known, it is impossible to say whether the development of an operational aircraft could be justified, though there is a lively military interest in the possibilities of variable geometry. I am satisfied that the agreement with the United States adequately safeguards this country's military and commercial rights and interests.

Mr. Mason: That seems to be a most encouraging reply. Can the Minister say precisely what our cost will be towards this project, and secondly, whether any


talks have taken place about the building of the aircraft, whether it will be done in America or in this country?

Mr. Jones: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, any work undertaken within Government establishments would be entirely covered by finance from Her Majesty's Government. For the rest, the Government propose to contribute half of the expenditure incurred by Vickers. The construction of an aircraft is at the moment a hypothetical question, but the intention is to look at the matter after completion of the research study. However, if there were a decision to go ahead with the construction of an aircraft, I am satisfied that the construction would be undertaken in this country.

Mr. de Freitas: The Minister has referred to the American interest in this project. Will he undertake that our European allies will also be kept aware of the military potentialities of this aircraft, because we have recently lost to the United States certain military orders which many of us believe should not have been lost?

Mr. Jones: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Peyton: Does the safeguarding of this country's rights, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, mean that we shall not be in the position of having to pay royalties on the American development of what was originally a British invention? If this is so, my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on a very satisfactory achievement.

Mr. Jones: The boot is really on the other foot. If the Americans wish to make use of some of the knowledge acquired in this country, clearly royalties will be payable to the commercial firm in this country.

Surplus Boots

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Supply what offers he has invited from Russia for the purchase of the 1 million pairs of surplus boots.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): None, directly; but the Ministry of Supply is in consultation with the Board of Trade regarding the countries which are most likely to provide a market for the boots. They will be advertised accordingly.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is there no initiative in the Ministry of Supply? Is the Department not aware that the Prime Minister is in Moscow at this time and is pushing a natty line in gentlemen's hats? Would it not be a good idea if he could push these boots as well? Would they not be useful to the Russians in raising their consumer standards, and might they not also provide a market in the future for Russia to buy boots here? Will not the right hon. Gentleman do more about it, or will these boots go green in store and rot?

Mr. Taylor: At the moment, the Russians appear to be interested more in hats than in boots. I am also aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the arbiter in many matters besides hats. I understand, however, that people in Russia and the satellite countries wear leather jackboots in summer and padded felt boots in winter. The Chinese wear canvas in summer and padded felt boots of the jackboot type in winter. We have not, therefore, approached these countries. If they are interested in purchasing the boots for their civilian markets, they will have an opportunity to tender.

Mr. Mason: What initiative has the Minister taken to get rid of these boots? Soon we can envisage that he will himself be getting the boot on this matter.

Mr. Taylor: I have already made inquiries, both of the home trade and in many other directions, as to the best course we can take in disposing of these boots. One of the considerations to be taken into account was that we did not want to upset the home trade. Therefore, we are proceeding on the lines indicated.

Ballistic Missiles (Infra-red Detection)

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply what further expenditure is contemplated on the research now being conducted into infra-red detection of ballistic missiles.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The extent of future expenditure will depend on the results achieved in the research now being conducted.

Mr. Mason: Can the Minister tell us something about the research that is being conducted? In view of the fact that this


infra-red detection system may prove to give sufficient warning to us to erect a defence against ballistic missiles, this is a very important matter and the House should be aware at least of whether this research will be successful.

Mr. Jones: This is certainly very important. The research now being undertaken in this country is research into basic techniques. Without indulging in hyperbole, I should be justified in saying that the results achieved in this country compare extremely well with those achieved elsewhere. It would be premature, however, to say that the results have reached a point at which one could embark upon a firm development project.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of my right hon. Friend's welcome answer to Questions Nos. 2 and 9 and also to this Question, may we now take it that there has been a considerable restoration of what I have always regarded as disastrous cuts in defence research and development expenditure, which was cut in 1957?

Mr. Jones: The Question refers to expenditure on infra-red research. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the expenditure in that research since 1957, certainly not a change in the sense of contraction.

Aircraft Industry

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply if he is now able to make a statement about the progress made to streamline the aircraft industry; and to what extent it is still his intention gradually to reduce the manpower figure by 100,000.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Good progress towards rationalisation of the industry is being made. As I informed the hon. Member on 2nd February, the reduction in the labour force stems from a falling off in the demand for the products of the industry and my policy of encouraging diversification and re-grouping into larger and stronger units is aimed at minimising this decline.

Mr. Mason: How can the Minister reconcile that statement with the fact that he proposed this integration policy prior to the acceptance by the Service Ministers of the Lightning aircraft, the supersonic manned fighter, and the T.S.R.2, the supersonic manned bomber, which means that he must farm out orders to areas

where unemployment has been growing and that there is now no definite Government plan for the aircraft industry? The right hon. Gentleman is wavering from one side to the other according to the way in which the Service chiefs are wavering in the battle behind the scenes on these issues?

Mr. Jones: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman. The Lightning was started long before I came to the Mnistry of Supply. Concerning the latest aircraft, the T.S.R.2, I would have thought that this was the genesis of what I hope and believe will be fuller co-operation between the two firms, Vickers and English Electric.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply if, in the light of recent military orders, he will give his estimate as to what will be the further contraction of the aircraft industry; and if he will state the anticipated level of employment which this industry will provide over the next few years.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I took into account the prospect of these orders when I gave the House on 22nd May last year my broad estimate of the future level of employment in the aircraft industry, and I have no reason to amend that estimate now.

Mr. Beswick: I much appreciate the reply given by the Minister, which answers the question my hon. Friend was trying to put, but is the Minister now saying that there is nothing further he can do and that redundancy is going according to plan?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir. Redundancy is never planned; it is the outcome of a contraction of orders. The answer to the contraction of orders is to endeavour to build the industry on the civil side, and that work is proceeding.

Britannic Aircraft

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply if he will state the civilian requirements which he expects will be met by the aircraft type ordered for Transport Command as a long-range freighter; and by what date it was estimated the civilian version would be available.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The Britannic has been designed to meet both military and civil requirements and the military and


civil versions will be closely similar. Being designed to carry bulky and heavy loads over medium and long distances, the aircraft should prove exceptionally economical in operation, and therefore of interest to civil operators. The civil version of the Britannic will be available at about the same time as the military version.

Mr. Beswick: Without in any way wishing to criticise this aircraft, which, no doubt, will be a fine machine and which we all hope will have a ready sale in the civilian market, may I ask whether the Minister does not agree that, operational requirements being met, the military orders should be used for advancing the technique and development of civil aircraft? Is he satisfied that as the result of the placing of this military order the aircraft industry in general will be more competitive in the civilian market?

Mr. Jones: I remember the hon. Member enjoining me some six months ago to do something to keep in being the design team of Short Brothers and Harland in Northern Ireland. I trust that he is not now running away from his own precept.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Who advised my right hon. Friend that this turbo-propeller driven aircraft will sell in the open market seven or eight years hence? Is he not of opinion that this aircraft should be pure jet if we are to compete with the Americans in the years to come?

Mr. Jones: There are protagonists of both the pure jet and the turbo-prop. The fact remains that for the critical distances in the carrying of freight, the turbo-prop shows a lower operating cost. In addition, one of the other advantages of this aircraft, if we are to break into the freighter market, is also its lower capital cost.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister now answer my question: does he really think that in four or five years' time the industry, including the firm concerned and its design team, will be more or will be less competitive as a result of producing this prop-jet aircraft?

Mr. Jones: The freighter market is growing. The use of freighters in the United States is increasing by some 20 per cent. a year and it is desirable that

this country should do its utmost to enter this new market. It can do so only by having such an aircraft at the earliest possible moment. This was the most ready aircraft.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply how many Britannic 3 aircraft have been ordered; and what is the estimated cost, including spares.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Negotiations are still proceeding and in these circumstances I cannot give particulars.

Mr. Beswick: Would the Minister not agree that a substantial sum of money is involved? Since he is talking about the advantages of this aircraft in four or five years' time, does he appreciate that it will have to compete with aircraft like the Boeing 707, a freighter version of which will be available by that time? Again, will the Minister say whether he considers that the sum of money that will be involved by this order will place our industry in a position to compete with the American jet machines at that date?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Member wishes to compare this aircraft with the Boeing 707, he will find that the ability of this aircraft to carry equipment is much greater. Its loadability, to use a horrible word, is much easier, and that is an important factor in its competitive power.

Bloodhound and Thunderbird Missiles

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply if he is satisfied that full consideration was given to the merits of the Bloodhound and the Thunderbird before the United States Hawk was ordered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Full information has been given to our Allies in N.A.T.O. on the Bloodhound and Thunderbird guided missile systems.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that there is criticism, not only in this country but also from our European allies, that the American Government give far greater backing to American aircraft salesmanship than do our Government, and will he acknowledge that it is really the duty of his Ministry to do everything it can to bring employment to our aircraft industry?

Mr. Jones: Certainly, Sir, I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that from a technical point of view these two weapons are not inferior to the Hawk weapon. Indeed, again without being boastful, I think they offer considerable advantages over the Hawk. It is not for me to speculate on the reasons why other Governments may opt for the American weapon, but it must be recalled that the Americans offer considerable capital sums and our resources do not permit us to offer capital sums to quite the same extent.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Supply in what way the new versions of the surface-to-air weapons Thunder-bird and Bloodhound, announced in Command Paper No. 662, will be more advanced than the existing models.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The new versions will offer advantages in range, height and speed and they will be able to deal with enemy aircraft that come in at low levels.

Mr. Chetwynd: Are we to understand that the existing versions are not satisfactory and that they could not intercept anything that is likely to come against them at the present time?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is to accept that as time goes on one can develop more advanced versions, as with every other kind of weapon.

Short-range Nuclear Weapons

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply if it has yet been decided whether the short-range nuclear weapons to which Command Paper No. 662 refers are to be rocket propelled: and whether they will use liquid or solid fuel.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Yes, Sir. Rocket propulsion by solid fuel will be used.

Mr. de Freitas: Cannot the Minister assure us that we are in no way duplicating American research and development, which has happened already, and is he sure that in this case we are not, as opposed to the previous Question I put to him, following behind something that has been done better elsewhere?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir. In this case I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the weapon in question is com-

plementary to the American weapons and does not in any way duplicate anything done by the Americans.

Self-propelled Guns

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent the new self-propelled guns for the Army will be air-transportable.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The self-propelled medium gun will not be air-transportable. The design of the proposed self-propelled gun will enable it to be carried by air both strategically and tactically.

Mr. Mellish: I thought we were supposed to be aiming for an Army that is mobile in respect of all its equipment, and if we have not any aircraft to take 'any equipment at the moment, and will not have for some time to come, what kind of procedure is it that designs a gun which cannot be taken by air and must be taken by ship?

Mr. Jones: The answer is that the medium gun is designed to reinforce the hitting power of the Centurion tank, which cannot be carried in any aircraft.

Mr. Mellish: How long will it take by sea to get it where the hitting power is desired?

Mr. Jones: I do not think there is any tank at present in existence which can be carried in an aircraft.

Anti-Tank Guided Weapons

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made with the development of the anti-tank guided weapon which was announced two years ago as being able to drive the tank from the battlefield.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Considerable progress has been made in resolving the complex problems involved in this project.

Mr. Mellish: That is not a very satisfactory reply. We were told that this programme was launched two years ago. Can we have any idea when we are likely to have such a gun?

Mr. Jones: It is true that the project was mentioned two years ago, but in the realm of new guided missiles two years is a very short time. I would be wrong


to endeavour to conceal from the hon. Gentleman that this project is a most complicated and difficult one.

Mr. Mellish: But is it not extraordinary that at the same time as we are producing a light tank we are producing a weapon that can destroy it?

Mr. Jones: Again, with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think he has misinterpreted the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air a couple of years ago. This weapon is designed to displace the heavy tank in its defensive rôle of killing other tanks. It has not displaced the tank in its offensive rôle.

Aerial Jeeps

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Supply if he is now developing aerial jeeps for use by the Army.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: We are developing various light communications aircraft and helicopters. We have nothing exactly like the American so-called aerial jeep.

Mr. Mellish: Are there any consultations going on with the Americans? Is it not possible that with good co-operation they could provide such jeeps for Commando units?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir, there is cooperation, but as far as I am aware no requirement for such a vehicle has yet been expressed by any of the Services.

Stand-off Bombs

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Supply if it has yet been decided whether the propelled bomb whose progress is reported in the Defence White Paper, Command Paper No. 662, will have a built-in guidance system.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The development of propelled stand-off bombs for use with V-bombers is being carried out in industry with assistance from my Department's Research and Development Establishments. These bombs will have built-in guidance systems.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will it be possible to launch them from any point from the aircraft's base to the maximum range, and will they be able to zigzag to avoid interception?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir.

Aircraft (Noise)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Supply if he will state the approximate amount spent by his Department on research into noise abatement in the aircraft industry in 1958; and what further expenditure is contemplated for 1959.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Supply if he will state the approximate estimated annual amount his Department is spending in research on noise abatement in the aircraft industry; and to what extent he contemplates increasing this expenditure.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: My Department is spending about £75,000 per year on research contracts specifically for work on noise abatement, and work is planned to continue at about this level. In addition, much work is being done by Research Establishments of the Ministry of Supply and in industry as part of the aircraft and aero-engine programme, the cost of which cannot readily be segregated.

Mr. Hunter: In view of the importance of abating noise from aircraft engines, can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that finance does not limit this research?

Mr. Taylor: As I explained in answer to a supplementary question on 26th January, money is not the limiting factor, and considerably more than the £75,000 per annum, to which I have just referred, is being devoted to this work. Our knowledge of the fundamental causes of jet noise is still incomplete, and the ultimate answer to the problem probably lies in fundamental research into new types of engines.

Mr. Skeffington: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, as I am sure he does, that, with the development of high-powered jet-propelled aircraft, life for many people who live near the airports —some before their advent—can only be described as sheer hell by day and night, and that this is a matter to which very high priority should be given?

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I myself have followed up this work. I can assure him that if there is any hopeful sign of real progress, the question of money will not be allowed to stand in the way.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Strontium 90

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the 1956 wheat crop samplings tested in the United States of America had a strontium 90 content on or just over the limit for strontium 90 established by the Atomic Energy Commission, that the 1958 samplings averaged 50 per cent. above that limit, and that samples of Minnesota wheat contained six times as much, he will, after giving due notice prohibit the import from the United States of America of cereal and related products not reliably tested and warranted free from strontium 90.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I have seen Press reports about this, but have no other details at present. Further information about these samplings is being sought from the United States in order to assess any possible risk from importing the cereal products concerned.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that this information came from a commission of scientists appointed by the Governor of Minnesota, that it is, therefore, of an official character, and that great concern was expressed by the commission at the indications that the strontium 90 content was steadily rising?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. My understanding is that the Medical Research Council does not know of any figures published by the United States Atomic Energy Commission or any other body for the maximum permissible levels of daily intake of strontium in food. Maybe there is some misapprehension between us which we could clear up.

Dr. Summerskill: Last Monday a Question was asked about the contamination by radioactivity of imported food, and the House was told that no examination of any kind was made at the ports, although we have an extensive examination of home-produced food. Can the Minister tell us why this is?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My recollection is that this matter was dealt with last Monday, as the right hon. Lady suggests, and I think that then the position in regard to monitoring was spelt out to the House.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister must not run away from things in this way. I asked him why no examination was made at the ports. He then tells the House that the position was spelt out to me. The position was spelt out to me— to use the curious language which the right hon. and learned Gentleman uses— about what is done with home-produced food, but the Parliamentary Secretary specifically said—I have the OFFICIAL REPORT with me—that no examination was made at the ports. I want the the Minister to tell me why.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My recollection is that it was then explained that it was not considered that an appreciable risk arose in regard to imported food and that that was the answer then given to the Question. With regard to the results of monitoring, there is a Question later on the Order Paper today to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Children (Smoking)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health what report he has received from the Acting Principal School Medical Officer to the Special Services Board of Oxfordshire Education Committee on the smoking habits of children aged between 11 and 19 years; and whether, in view of the fact that where children know about the connection between smoking and health there is less smoking by them, he will take steps to give publicity, especially in schools, to the dangers to health caused by smoking.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not received a report but have seen references to it in the Press. Local health authorities have already been asked to publicise the risks attached to smoking as part of their health education arrangements and in cooperation with local education authorities they are paying particular attention to school children.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister get in touch with the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see whether something really effective cannot be done to discourage smoking by young people? Is he totally unaware of the violent feelings of the medical profession, educationists, parents and public opinion in general? What is the point of thousands of pounds


being spent in cancer research when more money is being spent in this country at the present time through advertising in trying to persuade young people to smoke?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps recall that in August I sent a further circular to the local health authorities asking for their reports on the measures taken by them to date and inviting suggestions from them. I have now received those reports and I am studying them and am considering, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, whether any further measures are now called for.

Dr. Summerskill: Why does not the Minister adopt the same measure as he adopts in the field of public health? He would be supported by non-smokers and smokers—in fact, everybody except the tobacco trade—in this effort to stop young children acquiring the smoking habit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the methods that we adopt in public health when we want to bring to the notice of the people the necessity to acquire good habits. Why does he refuse to use them in respect of smoking?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady will appreciate that I have received the reports for which I asked from the local health authorities, and I think she would feel it appropriate that I should now study them to see what further action is called for. A great deal of our attention has been directed to young people and children. The report which is the subject of the Question shows that where children knew about the connection there was less smoking. It also shows—I think this is of some interest—that where both parents smoke the risk of the child smoking is about three times as great.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the Minister's reply, and to give him a chance of telling us what conclusions he reaches and us a chance of pressing him to take action, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment if I am fortunate enough to be able to do so.

Toothpaste Advertisements

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received from dentists' organisations regarding misleading toothpaste advertisements; and what reply he has sent.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): While he is aware that the British Dental Association is worried about it my right hon. and learned Friend has not received formal representations from dentists' organisations on this subject.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In anticipation of formal representations which I have no doubt will be reaching the Minister shortly, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to look at the leading article in the current issue of the British Dental Journal and tell us why it is that misleading and dangerous advertising regarding Gleem and Colgate's Dental Cream was withdrawn, according to The Times, only last week although the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was drawn to these dangers in a debate on advertising which I initiated on 21st November? How does the hon. Gentleman explain this extraordinary delay?

Mr. Thompson: I think it is relevant to observe, following what the hon. Gentleman has said, that the Independent Television Authority, acting on the advice of the Advertising Advisory Committee, has decided that a number of toothpaste advertisements which are considered to be misleading should be withdrawn or modified. This follows objections from the British Dental Association through its representatives on that Committee.

Food Hygiene (Dogs)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health what estimate he has made of the success of voluntary action, following official advice on the matter, in persuading customers not to bring dogs into premises in which food is sold; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Thompson: While a voluntary scheme can perhaps never be completely effective, I think that the success achieved has been as great as would have followed any direct prohibition.

Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that food traders in Tottenham feel strongly that there should be some prohibitive regulation on this point and that the borough council has felt unable to introduce a byelaw because of the Minister's desire to rely on voluntary


action? If he does not feel able to introduce a regulation, will he approve the introduction of byelaws by local authorities where this is felt to be necessary?

Mr. Thompson: I am a little doubtful just how far regulations would be effective in a case like this. Many members of the public would object to the restriction, the public health inspector could not always be there to look out for offences, and the shopkeeper could hardly be expected always to give information against his customers.

Superannuation Regulations

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health on what date one of his predecessors received a deputation, introduced by the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth, from the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, and another professional organisation; and when the recommendations, which he accepted, are to be introduced in new superannuation regulations.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On 8th December, 1955. I am not proposing to introduce amending National Health Service Superannuation Regulations until such changes as are necessitated by the introduction of a graduated National Insurance Pension scheme can be included. The Regulations, when introduced, will cover the proposal communicated to the Royal College of Nursing on 3rd October, 1956.

Dame Irene Ward: Though one realises that one has to wait for the new superannuation regulations, does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree it is very hard that these people whose position will be improved, although they are few in number, should have to wait from 1955 to 1959 without having a little amelioration of their condition, to which the Minister agreed? Is it fair to deal with small people in this rather hard way?

Mr. Walker-Smith: What the then Minister undertook to do was to include this provision when he put before Parliament proposals for general amending regulations. With regard to the general amending regulations, I think we can expect that the need will now arise before long in the context of the proposals before Parliament for a graduated National Insurance pensions scheme.

Doctors (Emigration)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he has read the extract from the medical Press submitted to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, concerning the emigration of established doctors; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir, with interest. But I already knew that there has always been some emigration of doctors, the volume varying from year to year.

Dr. Johnson: While I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, is he aware that one depends not only on things one sees in the medical Press about medical emigration, but on personal experience of acquaintances and friends as well? I have here a letter from a doctor in Australia, which I should be obliged if I could send my right hon. and learned Friend, in which the writer expresses his pleasure at being able to regain skills which he had practised in this country. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, in particular, that it is this loss of skill which worries many doctors in general practice, and will he keep the position very closely under observation?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly read the interesting communication which my hon. Friend says he will be good enough to send me, but in order that we may have in mind a general picture of the position, my hon. Friend will, I know, be glad to hear that in 1957, the last year for which I have complete figures, the proportion of emigrants who were doctors and dentists was the lowest recorded except for 1953.

Building Projects

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the total value of building projects proposed by local authorities and sanctioned by him under the terms of the circular on capital investment issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 17th November; and how much of this total is in connection with projects on Tyneside.

Mr. Walker-Smith: So far local authorities have proposed, and I have undertaken to recommend for loan sanction, building projects to the value of £2·6 million. The figure for Tyneside is £32,150.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in view of the amount of unemployment in the building trades and so on, this sum is deplorably small? Can he do anything to encourage hospital authorities further to speed up any projects they may have—for example, the development of mental health work, welfare services, and so on?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have no doubt that local authorities will take this interchange as a reminder of the possibilities in this regard. So far as I am aware, I have not failed to accept any scheme falling within the scope of my right hon. Friend's circular. Although it is not too late to submit them, further schemes should be submitted very quickly if they are to get within the terms of the circular.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Mental Patients (Treatment)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Heatlh (1) what annual reports are made to him of the number of complaints of alleged brutal or violent treatment of patients in mental hospitals; how many of those complaints were investigated and with what result; and how many male or female nurses were dismissed or otherwise punished for those offences;
(2) what action is taken by him or the Board of Control in respect of public statements alleging specific incidents of brutal treatment of patients in menial hospitals, both in respect of the investigation of those statements and of disciplinary measures against those on the hospital staffs against whom the allegations are proved.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No such annual reports are made; but mental hospitals are required to notify the Board of Control of the dismissal, or resignation to escape dismissal, of any member of the nursing staff who has been, or is about to be, dismissed on the ground of misconduct in connection with a patient. During 1958 the Board were notified of two such cases.
All complaints of ill-treatment, whether made publicly or addressed to hospital authorities, the Board of Control or the Ministry of Health, are fully investigated if the necessary particulars can

be provided. Disciplinary action is, in the first place, a matter for the employing authority, but the Board of Control have power to authorise proceedings against anyone who has ill-treated a patient in a mental hospital.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself satisfied with this procedure, or has he any reason to suppose that the reports as given do not indicate the exact circumstances and frequency of these alleged complaints? Has he made any special investigations from time to time to see whether in fact instances which have taken place have not been properly recorded?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am satisfied that the procedure works as I have described. Complaints of ill-treatment may be an aspect of the patient's mental condition and therefore without an objective basis, but all of them must be and are fully investigated and I attach the highest importance to that principle.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, in a recent television broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation, an ex-patient of a mental hospital made charges of violent and brutal treatment of patients, which he had witnessed; if he will request the Corporation to supply him with the script of the broadcast, with a view to taking such further steps as may be necessary in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the hospital board concerned in order to maintain public confidence in the mental health services.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have asked for and received the script from the B.B.C, and I am in touch with the Director-General about certain questions arising on this programme. In order that full inquiries may be made, I have asked to be given full particulars of the incidents referred to in the programme in question. Further action must, of course, await their receipt.

Mr. Sorensen: Was the Minister's attention drawn to this particular television item at the time it was given? If so, why was action not taken immediately? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the impression left with many people was that the allegations, of an ex parte and uncorroborated nature, were nevertheless


characteristic of treatment in mental hospitals? Although that is not so, does he not feel that this is a very serious matter and that such items should not be given unless corroborated, or unless it is made perfectly clear that they are seriously open to doubt?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Action was taken immediately. The only action open to me as Minister, as the hon. Member will appreciate, was to ask for the script and then, in the light of that, to have further inquiries made into the parts of the broadcast to which objection could be taken. I am not sure what else the hon. Member has in mind by "at once". It was not open to me in any event to prevent the programme, as he will understand.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that it is not unusual for ex-mental patients to make allegations of this kind against nurses who work in mental homes where they are often among the finest in the nursing profession, being called upon to do uncongenial work and at all times to restrain their tempers? In view of that, will he make strong representations to the B.B.C. that under no circumstances should it sensationalise this tragic illness, mental illness, because on such occasions patients in mental hospitals all over the country watch the incident and it is neither in their interests nor in those of the nurses that the B.B.C. should make cheap propaganda on television in this way?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Corporation is already in possession of my views on this matter and, in particular, as to how unfortunate it would be if a programme of this sort deterred someone from seeking mental treatment when he would otherwise have done so. I should say in fairness to the British Broadcasting Corporation that hitherto it has done a lot to help to foster a balanced public view of the importance of mental disorder. I wholly agree with what the right hon. Lady has said about nurses and others working in our mental hospitals. They work under very difficult conditions, and I am sure that the whole House would join in a tribute to their work.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that one cannot have a balanced view unless all sides are shown and that the B.B.C. has

done its best to give a very fair picture, and that an attempt to put a gag on certain matters which occur, if only occasionally, would be highly undesirable?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is no question of a gag. I have already said that hitherto the B.B.C. has done its best to present a balanced picture. What is in doubt here, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, is whether this programme was a balanced programme, or whether it picked out and concentrated upon features tending to show our mental hospitals in an adverse light without giving an appropriate opportunity for comment on or correction of those statements.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Munich Agreement

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any peace treaty with Germany, Her Majesty's Government will insist that Germany recognises as invalid the Munich Agreement with all the results therefrom and declares herself as recognising the territory of the former so-called Sudeten region as an integral part of the national territory of Czechoslovakia.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): I understand that the view of the Federal German Government is that the question of the frontiers of a reunited Germany should be settled at a peace treaty with an all-German Government, on the basis of the frontiers existing on 31st December, 1937. I should not expect any difficulty about this question when it comes to the negotiation of a peace treaty.

Mr. Lewis: While appreciating that reply, can the Joint Under-Secretary give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will insist that such a clause will be included in any eventual agreement?

Mr. Allan: I could not agree to the word "insist" in connection with a treaty which we hope will be freely negotiated.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Government do their best to get such an agreement?

Mr. Allan: Yes.

Former Nazi Officials

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that in any peace treaty with Germany all former Nazi judges, military leaders and others holding State and quasi-State positions in either East or West Germany must be removed from office and, further, that any such Nazi who has been found guilty of any of the various crimes associated with the Nazi movement will not, for at least the next ten years, be allowed to hold any State or semi-State appointment.

Mr. R. Allan: Everybody, including the Federal Government, wants to ensure that Nazism will not rise again in a united Germany. But I cannot anticipate discussions about a German peace treaty.

Mr. Lewis: While appreciating that the Federal Government and Her Majesty's Government and everyone else would like this view put into operation, can the hon. Gentleman give some reason why such a clause should not be included in any eventual treaty? If ten years is too long, perhaps we could settle for five. Would not something of that kind be helpful, especially since Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government agree on the principle involved?

Mr. Allan: As the hon. Member has pointed out, there are many others besides himself who detest the Nazi movement and perhaps with more reason than the hon. Gentleman—I do not mean that unkindly. That is the feeling of Western German leaders at the moment. I am sure that we can trust them to see that this principle is adopted, but it might not necessarily be wise to put it into a treaty.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that among the categories set out in my hon. Friend's Question there is one category of special significance, namely, former Nazi judges and former Nazi prosecutors in judicial positions, and that there are many of them so employed in West Germany? Since the Foreign Secretary has frequently promised to inquire into this state of affairs, and since there are so many Nazis so employed and we have

not yet had a report, is not this an offence to the public conscience all over the world? Is it not rather like putting Hitler in charge of a war crimes tribunal?

Mr. Allan: Those are very wide allegations. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the de-nazification proposals have been taken over by the Federal Government since 1949.

Berlin

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what was the purpose of Her Majesty's Ambassador's action in Washington on 6th February, when he drew the attention of the State Department to allegations in the United States Press that the formulation of plans to meet the contingency of another so-called Berlin blockade was being impeded by British objections to the use of land forces;
(2) why Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington informed the State Department on 6th February that his Embassy had, early in January, endorsed a French proposal for a detailed discussion by military experts of practical measures to meet contingencies in Berlin, and that a senior and fully qualified British officer had come to Washington and waited ten days for the purpose.

Mr. R. Allan: Her Majesty's Ambassador's object was to draw attention to speculative Press reports about secret talks which inaccurately represented the British attitude.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Joint Under-Secretary aware that, according to The Times of 7th February, the Ambassador gave an interview to the American Press in which he specifically said that the Government wanted to have these military discussions as soon as possible to work out a scheme to meet contingencies? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will in no circumstances resort to direct action by land or air to establish communications with Berlin in preference to working with East German officials who replace their Soviet colleagues?

Mr. Allan: It would be most unwise to speculate about developments on the Berlin question at this moment.

Mr. Paget: If our military forces and their allies do not concert plans to take action when their rights are infringed, what is the point of having either military forces or allies?

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of the danger to world peace which is stated in the British Note to the Soviet Government to be inherent in the initiative of the latter in regard to Berlin.

Mr. R. Allan: Her Majesty's Government have in mind the situation which could arise if the Soviet Government, by refusing to carry out their obligations to the Western Powers regarding Berlin, prejudice the fulfilment by the Western Powers of their obligations to the people of West Berlin.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister assure us that in the event of Russia resiling from her responsibilities in Eastern Germany we would not endanger peace by refusing to deal with the East German officials?

Mr. Allan: The hon. Member must remember that, as the Leader of the Opposition said on Thursday, we have not only rights to defend but obligations to fulfil to the people of West Berlin.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the appropriate means which the Government in their reply to the Soviet Note on Berlin reserve the right to uphold in order to maintain their communications with Berlin when Soviet frontier and transport officials are replaced by East German officials.

Mr. R. Allan: The means which would be appropriate would depend on the situation at the time.

Mr. Rankin: Well, then, once again, does the hon. Gentleman realise that the means can be by air or by land? Will he assure us that neither of those means would be utilised in order to obviate the necessity of meeting East German officials in the event of Russia resigning her responsibilities in Berlin?

Mr. Allan: Those are all hypothetical questions. I am sorry, but I cannot be drawn by them at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Geneva Conference

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the present deadlock in the area, if he will propose a recall of the Geneva Conference to discuss ways and means of implementing the provisions of the agreement on Vietnam.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now invite the other co-chairman of the Geneva Conference to discuss steps toward the reunification of Vietnam, in accordance with the Geneva Agreement.

Mr. R. Allan: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) on 16th February.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that Her Majesty's Government will take action at some time to seek the recall of this Conference, as it is now clear that the provisions of the Geneva Agreement on Vietnam are not being carried out? Are Her Majesty's Government willing, at some time, to request the recall of the Conference to investigate why these provisions are not being carried out?

Mr. Allan: I do not think that that would be the wish of the parties to the various agreements, and I do not see that any useful service would be performed by doing it now.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case it is clear that the American Government and their puppet dictator Ngo dinh Diem are responsible for the failure to reunify Vietnam through free elections? Have the Government nothing in mind in the way of alternative methods of achieving this objective, other than by free elections?

Mr. Allan: As my right hon. and learned Friend has stated, we rely upon free elections.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend indicate why the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and his friends are so anxious for free elections in Vietnam and yet disapprove of them


in East Germany, where the Communists are in control, because, they say, they would be unrealistic?

Political Prisoners

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, he will request the International Supervisory Commission to make a special investigation into the circumstances leading to the sudden death or serious illness of a large proportion of the 6,000 political prisoners at the Phu Loi Political Retraining Centre in South Vietnam.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken under Article 14 (c) of the Geneva Agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam concerning the alleged poisoning of 1,000 detainees in Phuloi camp in South Vietnam in December, 1958.

Mr. R. Allan: As I informed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) on 18th February, I understand that the North Vietnamese complaint on this matter is being considered by the International Commission.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that the South Vietnam Government have not denied that something of an extremely serious character is taking place at this concentration camp, will the hon. Member ask the Foreign Secretary to call for a special report in this case and make it available to this House as soon as it is ready, rather than wait for the long period before we get the annual report of the International Commission?

Mr. Allan: In the first place, my right hon. and learned Friend would have no authority to call for a special report. The matter is now being investigated. Let us leave it at that.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have diplomatic representations in South Vietnam? Why is it that the Government are not able to get from these diplomatic representatives definite information about this matter?

Mr. Allan: The matter is being investigated. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen a statement by the

Director of the Phu Loi Centre in a communiqué issued on 30th January. In that he said that, although there were a few cases of simulated gastric trouble, there were no cases of genuine food poisoning.

U.S.S.R. (BRITISH FILMS)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, for the purpose of encouraging the exhibition of British films abroad, he will initiate discussions with the Soviet authorities for a British-Soviet film exchange plan, on the lines of the United States-Soviet film agreement announced by the Director of the United States Information Agency on 8th January.

Mr. R. Allan: At present the Russians have ample opportunities for the sale, distribution and exhibition of their films in the United Kingdom. An Anglo-Soviet exchange of film weeks under the auspices of the Soviet Relations Committee of the British Council is now being negotiated. Fuller reciprocal arrangements, such as the hon. Gentleman has in mind, could best be made by the British film industry and the appropriate Soviet organisations.

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate the efforts which are being made by the various authorities mentioned in that Reply, but since the American Government have done so, why are Her Majesty's Government unwilling to initiate discussions at a higher level on this matter? This Soviet-American plan was initiated by the Director of the United States Information Agency. Why cannot the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster initiate a similar agreement for the United Kingdom?

Mr. Allan: I understand that the American Government agreement was first reached with the industries and then ratified at governmental level. That is how the Russians like to do things.

LAOS

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what notification he has received, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, of the decision of the Royal Laotian Government to denounce the Geneva Agreement on the


cessation of hostilities in Laos; and what action he has taken to maintain the rights and obligations of all the parties to the Agreement.

Mr. R. Allan: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the declaration made by the Royal Laotian Government on 11th February. As was made clear in a statement by the Laotian Prime Minister on 17th February and subsequently, this was not a denunciation of the Geneva Agreements.

Mr. Warbey: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary for that reply. Do the Government support the American policy of seeking to draw Laos into the S.E.A.T.O. bloc, or will they stand by the Geneva understanding, which was that Laos and Cambodia should constitute a neutral area?

Mr. Allan: That is a quite different question. In any case, I do not accept the implications in the hon. Member's supplementary question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the International Bank and Monetary Fund Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.31 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The reason for the Bill is a simple and inescapable one. The Valuation Office of the Board of Inland Revenue has reported to the Government that it is impossible in time for April, 1961, to make new valuations of all the house property in England and Wales on a current rental basis that would be reliable and defensible. There are about 13½ million houses and other dwellings which will have to be revalued, so that it is no small task. The Valuation Office has advised the Government that there will not be sufficient evidence of free market rentals available in time for 1961, but that there will be in time for 1963.
The sole purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill, the main Clause, is to defer the revaluation by two years, in line with the advice of the Valuation Office. The people at the valuation offices have to do the actual work of revalution and they then have to defend their valuations when appeals are made against them to the valuation courts or, eventually it may be, to the Lands Tribunal. The Government cannot set aside expert advice of this kind.
We have not accepted it lightly. The Valuation Office is directly responsible to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to me, but my right hon. Friend and I have gone into the whole matter thoroughly. We have questioned the Valuation Office and tested the validity of what it says. It has been proved to us that this conclusion is inescapable.
The present valuation on which rate demands are based came into force on 1st April, 1956. In accordance with the law, the basis for valuing residential properties is the 1939 rental value, whereas all other property is assessed by reference to 1956 rental value. Under the law as it stands that difference was only to apply for the 1956 valuation. The


law says that there shall be a revaluation every five years and provision was made for the whole of the next valuation—that is, the 1961 valuation—to be on the current value basis, unless, of course, further legislation were passed meanwhile. It has become necessary to introduce that further legislation, but we are not altering the current value basis because I think that everyone agrees that we ought to continue to aim at getting back to that.
This Bill in no way affects the basis; it affects only the time. The valuation officers could revalue commercial, industrial and other similar property on a current basis in time for April, 1961, without difficulty. The difficulty solely concerns houses and flats, and so on. The overwhelming preponderance of residential properties in the valuation lists is not always realised. Only 14 per cent. of all rateable properties are industrial and commercial and so forth; 86 per cent. of the total number are residential. For that reason, one cannot have a sound revaluation as a whole if there is not a sufficiently sound basis for the valuation of houses.
If I may go into the technicalities for a moment, the task of a valuer is to establish what is called the gross value. Once that is done, the net annual and rateable values are deduced from the gross value according to a statutory formula. If they wish, hon. Members can look it up and find the gross value defined in Section 68 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. There,"gross value"is defined as follows:
'Gross value 'means the rent at which a hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenants' rates and taxes … and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent.
That is the statutory definition of gross value.
What valuation officers have, therefore, to find in time for 1961, if we leave the law unamended, is the current rent at which each of the 13½ million houses may be expected to let from year to year. This is not something which they can arrive at in an abstract way. It cannot be discovered by intuition, it cannot even be discovered by intuition

guided by experience. It has to be based on the market at the time—in other words, on the rents which houses are currently commanding in a free market.
That does not necessarily mean the rent of the one particular house which is being valued. It means the rent of a sufficiently representative quantity of houses to give the valuation officers their yardsticks. The valuation office says—I am sure that this view would be sustained by all competent valuers—that if evidence of free market rents exists for something approaching 10 per cent. of the houses in the country, a valuer can undertake his task with confidence that the results will be defensible.
Some of the comment which I have seen in the Press and elsewhere since the Bill was published has ignored the fact that it is not only the valuation officer himself who needs reliable rental evidence. There is, of course, a right of appeal by the citizen to the valuation courts and a right of further appeal from the valuation courts to the Lands Tribunal. Both the valuation courts and the Lands Tribunal, therefore, must have a sufficient body of evidence of market rents if they are to perform their tasks, which are highly responsible tasks. Their work becomes impossible if it is not practicable for them to obtain from available rental evidence a coherent picture of rent levels against which the particular cases before them on appeal can be viewed.
What we all have to look at, in judging Clause 1 of the Bill, is the degree of likelihood that evidence of current free market rents will be sufficiently available. I would remind the House that the time which is material is not 1961, but 1959 and early 1960. The 13½ million new assessments cannot be produced all at once, at the last moment. Indeed, the law requires that the new valuation lists must be in the hands of the local authorities before the end of 1960, though they would not begin to operate until April, 1961. So, if the valuation office waited longer to start on its immense task it would be too late to get it finished. It is the material which it would be able to collect about rents in 1959 which matters.
So we have to ask how much material could the valuation office get if it started here and now? About 5 million of the


13½ million properties are owner-occupied: therefore, they give no help at all in determining rents. Another 3 million houses or so are publicly owned and most of these are subsidised. Subsidised rents, again, are no help to the valuer in arriving at the free-market rent. Then there are all the houses which are let furnished, or let on special terms, such as between one member of a family or another. All these afford no solid material to the valuer. So we are left with only the houses and flats which are let unfurnished on normal tenancies.
By far the greater part of these of course are still under rent control. Very few of them can as yet provide any real evidence of free-market rents. Of course, the evidence will accumulate as individual houses and flats become vacant and are relet, because upon falling vacant they are decontrolled. That evidence will build up year by year: this provision of the law has been in operation now for little more than eighteen months whereas, two years' hence, it will have operated for about three and a half years. If some rents in some parts of the country have settled below the top limits allowed by the Rent Act, that also will provide evidence of market conditions.
Then, of course, we have the many thousands of rather larger houses and flats which the Rent Act freed from control because they were above certain rateable limits. For a large number of these, leases of three years or longer have been negotiated. Here, at any rate, it might be thought, is a block of evidence on which the valuers could rely. But the rents under these three-year leases were negotiated at a time when the market had not settled down at all, and under special provisions in the Rent Act which said that leases had to be for not less than three years if an increased rent under it was to take effect at once. The Report of the Valuation Office to the Government is that the market is not yet settled sufficiently, even in that block of decontrolled property, to furnish trustworthy evidence of free-market rents.
The picture is of a growing body of reliable evidence over the next two or three years. As that evidence increases, it could be used to challenge before valuation courts and before the Lands Tribunal valuations that had been made by the

valuers in 1959 and 1960 on evidence which, the valuers themselves say, will be inadequate to support their valuations. Indeed, the estimate given to the Government by the Valuation Office is that if the law is not amended and the valuation is to proceed forthwith, satisfactory rental evidence will be available for less than 2 per cent. of all the houses in England and Wales. This is far too small a proportion on which to found new valuations that could be successfully supported before the valuation courts and the Lands Tribunal, if challenged.
These are the conclusive reasons which have led the Government to accept that there is no alternative to a postponement of some sort. The year 1963 has been chosen because the Valuation Office advises that there should be enough evidence available in time for that, but that there would not be enough in time for a valuation any earlier than 1963. That is why the first two subsections of Clause I take the form they do.
Subsection (3) is put in because, if there is to be a general postponement, a door ought not to be left open for attempts to secure partial revaluations. Subsection (3) debars anyone, other than the valuation officer or owner or occupier concerned, from making any proposal for altering the current valuation list. It is exactly similar to the provision in Section 2 (2) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) 1955, with regard to the lists then in force. So we are not creating a precedent.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the subsection does not create a permament effect and in no way stops ratepayers' associations from making representations? The subsection appears to have aroused a good deal of concern, People have written to me about it because they have the impression that it will take away the right of a person who is not a party to a valuation to appear, some right that was formerly enjoyed.

Mr. Brooke: It certainly does not take away permanently any power, but what it does is to prevent a third party, at a time when the Government are seeking to postpone general revaluation, from taking steps to start what might develop into a partial revaluation in some area.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Does it mean that a rating authority can make no proposal while this postponement is in force?

Mr. Brooke: I was going on to explain the one action that a rating authority could take. I have already mentioned that this was exactly the same provision as was, on a previous occasion, put into another Act of Parliament. The subsection preserves the right for a rating authority to make proposals to include properties in the lists. That is mainly concerned with challenging cases of exemption from rating. The rate relief of 20 per cent.—

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, if he would be good enough to do so? Does this subsection prevent a rating authority, with the exception that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, making proposals during the period of this postponement?

Mr. Brooke: That was what I was seeking to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sorry if he thought I did not answer his question. I was indicating the one field in which the right of a rating authority to make a proposal during this interim period would be preserved. There would not be a right otherwise. I am sure that the House, on consideration, will see the reason for that.
The rating relief of 20 per cent. granted to shops and offices and certain other properties by the Rating and Valuation Act, 1957, was stated in that Act to be for the period while the existing valuation lists remained in force. If the Bill is put on the Statute Book that relief will continue automatically until the next revaluation, in 1963. That is obviously right, for the causes which justified the 1957 Act will continue to operate until there is another revaluation.
The other substantive provision of the Bill, although it is subsidiary to the main one, is in Clause 2. This Clause will postpone the effect of certain notices that have been already served under subsection (3) of Section 8 of the 1955 Act so that no notices can take effect, at the earliest, until 1st April, 1963. I am sure that the House will wish to have some more detailed explanation from me of

that. Section 8 in the 1955 Act is a rather complex one which was not in the Bill when it was introduced in Parliament. The Section was added, I think, at the recommittal stage of the Bill.
Before the 1956 revaluation, when local authorities were responsible for rating assessments, charities had often received a sympathetic under-assessment from the local authorities and, during the course of the 1955 Bill, hon. Members expressed a great deal of anxiety in case bodies of this charitable character might suffer swingeing increases in assessments on their revaluation at full rental values in 1956. It was to prevent that happening that Section 8 was introduced.
Section 8 froze the amount of rates payable by bodies of that kind in 1956–57 at the actual amount charged in 1955–56. If this resulted in a reduction from the full rates they would otherwise have to pay in 1956–57, the percentage reduction was to be determined and the same proportion of relief was to be given in each subsequent year, unless the rating authority served three clear years' notice to reduce or discontinue the reduction. My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence, when he was in my place said to the Committee on 6th July, 1955:
there will be a warning period before anything happens which might severely prejudice the organisations, and this will ensure that in any case there will be plenty of time for Parliament to consider the position and decide whether to legislate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1156.]
It seemed at first that no valid notice to reduce or discontinue the relief could operate to render the charitable organisation liable to full rates before 1st April, 1961. This view appeared to be borne out by a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1957 in the case of St. Pancras Borough Council v. University of London. To withdraw relief as from that date, 1st April, 1961, the notice would need to be served before 31st March, 1958. Therefore, I decided that the right time to collect the information which would give a complete picture of the way in which rating authorities were exercising their power was from April, 1958, onwards. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence had given a promise in 1955 that this information would be collected at the appropriate time and would be made available to Parliament.
Meanwhile, I informed the House on 23rd January, 1958, that to advise me on the whole subject I was appointing a Departmental Committee to review the way in which Section 8 had worked and to recommend how bodies coming within its purview should be treated for rating purposes in future. This Committee which has been sitting under the chairmanship of a former High Court judge, Sir Fred Pritchard, hopes to complete its work within the next few weeks and, of course, its Report will be published.
In asking for approval of Clause 2 of the Bill, I should like to give the House some preliminary information on the size of the problem. We have found from our enquiries that about 53,600 properties enjoyed reduced rates in 1957–58 under Section 8 of the 1955 Act. At full rating they would have paid £5,800,000 in rates that year. Actually, they paid about £3,200,000. It might be of passing interest that the reduction of £2,600,000 is equivalent to slightly more than the product of 1d. rate throughout the whole country. Our information also shows that by 31st March, 1958—

Mr. G. Lindgren: It may be 1d. rate throughout the whole country, but, in the circumstances of particular areas, a 1d. rate would be disastrous to particular local authorities.

Mr. Brooke: I was not seeking for a moment to argue that it was the equivalent of 1d. rate in each local authority area. All I am doing is to give some preliminary information, as I thought the House would wish, as to the magnitude of the problem and the total overall picture. The Pritchard Committee will be reporting on all these matters shortly, and its Report will be published. I am not seeking to go into great detail, nor to anticipate any of the recommendations of the Committee. I merely thought that before asking the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill it was right to give some of the information which was in my possession as to the general magnitude of the problem. I am seeking to do nothing more than that.
According to the information in our possession, by 31st March, 1958, notices had been served by rating authorities to discontinue relief in respect of about 31,000 out of a total number of 53,600

properties which are enjoying relief. We do not know the extent to which rating authorities, when these notices take effect in 1961, are likely to exercise the discretion they have under subsection (4) of this important Section 8 to grant partial or complete relief from rates, but further details no doubt will appear in the Pritchard Committee Report when it is published.
I said it was thought that April, 1961, was the earliest date at which notices to discontinue the Section 8 relief could take effect. But a few months ago a decision was given in the High Court in the case of Westminster City Council v. King's College that in certain circumstances notices served by 31st March, 1957, to reduce or terminate relief as from 1st April, 1960, are valid. That makes the whole matter of much greater urgency because the Pritchard Committee Report is not yet ready and, although I have no idea what will be in the Report, it is common knowledge that the subject is a highly complex one; and by the time the Report is published there will be less than twelve months before some of the notices under Section 8 may begin to take effect.
That, quite clearly, leaves not enough time for the Report of the Committee to be thoroughly studied by all the very many bodies involved, for any representations made upon the Report to be considered and then for any legislation which may arise from the recommendations to be prepared and put on the Statute Book before the spring of next year—1st April, 1960, being the critical date for some of these cases. If, in the light of the Pritchard Committee's Report, it seems that legislation of some sort is desirable—and I am not prejudging that, because I do not know what the Pritchard Committee will say—then it may be that that legislation can be undertaken well before 1963. But as, by Clause 1 of the Bill, we are postponing the general revaluation to 1963, it seems sensible and it seems coherent under Clause 2 to prolong the Section 8 standstill until the same date.
This will afford ample time for anything which the Pritchard Committee may recommend to be thoroughly considered by all concerned. I am not saying that the Section 8 standstill will necessarily continue until 1963. I am saying that in the Bill we are providing for it to continue until 1963 unless, between now and then, Parliament decides


to enact some fresh legislation on the rating of charities which might come into force earlier. In the conjunction of circumstances created by the probable date of the Pritchard Committee's Report and by the High Court judgment in the King's College case, I think that it will probably be agreed that this is the sensible course to follow so that there may be ample time.
The Bill does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland.
It is simply a postponing Bill. I fully recognise that it must be a disappointment to local authorities in England and Wales, who had looked forward to seeing by 1961 a valuation based overall on current values. But I must ask them to accept my statement that a proper revaluation before 1963 on a current value basis is quite impracticable, and neither they nor I can set aside the expert advice which has been given by those on whom the responsibility of making a reliable revaluation will squarely fall.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: It may be that the Government have succeeded in placing themselves, the ratepayers and the local authorities in such a mess that a postponement of some sort is inevitable. The Minister has already indicated that he has had a pretty bad Press. Let me remind him that he provoked a leader in The Times of 20th February about this Bill headed,"An Uninviting Change". The Times is not a Labour paper. The right hon. Gentleman provoked in the Economist, again not a Labour paper, a passage headed,"An Unwise Reprieve". The reason which he gave for objecting to these comments seems to me to be somewhat insufficient.
What is interesting in this matter is to see how sudden the Government's decision has been. On 18th February, 1958, we were discussing, in Committee on the Local Government Bill, the general grant and the period for which it should be made. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated to the Committee that the initial period was taken as two years,
not that it had anything to do with the timing or result of the next General Election, but simply because it was known at that time that there would be revaluation due in 1961.
He went on to say:
although the first period we have taken is two years, we regard a longer period of three years as being preferable …"—[OFFICIAL

REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th February, 1958; c. 328.]
That was in February. In November last year the Government brought in, and on 5th December secured the assent of the House to, the General Grant Regulations, which limited the period to three years for the reason which I have just given and which the Parliamentary Secretary indicated.
Accordingly, we may conclude that at the beginning of December, 1958, the Government were still looking forward to a revaluation in 1961, at that time saw no difficulty about it and apparently had not consulted the Valuation Office as to whether it was practicable. In view of the dates which the right hon. Gentleman has given it is certainly not too much to say that they left it extraordinarily late. Two months later or thereabouts, on 11 th February, 1959, the right hon. Gentleman intimated that he intended to bring in the Bill, for substantially the reasons which he has put forward today.
I am very interested indeed in this opinion of the Valuation Office. It is said to be impartial. It is said to arise from the circumstances. But it has obviously come to birth rather quickly, and it is interesting, therefore, to look at it. I regard the need for the Bill as entirely the Government's own fault. Let me tell the House why I think that this is so.
In 1956, the Government were making a comprehensive review of local authority finance, including revaluation. That was under the Minister's predecessor. Early in 1957 the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he had been thinking about this for a very long time and would produce the result quite soon. He produced the result in the White Paper which preceded the Local Government Act.
In effect, all that the White Paper did was to add 25 per cent. to the liability of industry for rates. Industry already had a 25 per cent. liability. A further 25 per cent. was added, and the remaining 50 per cent. was left untouched, with the result that the present position is as the right hon. Gentleman stated in the Answer which I have mentioned—that industry is rated at 50 per cent. on present-day values, shops and offices by reason of the concession made in the 1955 Act are rated at 80 per cent. on present-day values, and the householder is rated on pre-war values.
That raises an obvious problem. Undoubtedly, relief could be given to the householder if his share of the rates were diminished by full industrial revaluation. Equally, the promised removal of the 20 per cent. concession to shops and offices would also relieve him. Nevertheless, at the end of the day it is highly probable, in my view, that something more will have to be done to help, at any rate, the small householder. This is a major political problem.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to give the impression that the 50 per cent. rates paid by industry are received by the local authority. He knows, of course, that of the £30 million extra revenue from industry, the right hon. Gentleman intends to take £20 million for the Treasury. Thus, the local authorities will not have the benefit of the 50 per cent. rerating.

Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I appreciate the point, but I was assuming for the moment that the Government might begin to see a little more sense and when it came to facing the problem of what to do about the domestic ratepayer, if I may so describe him, would accept a 100 per cent. rating of industry and would revise their habit of taking two-thirds of any increase for the Treasury. I was simply looking into the future as hopefully as I could.
The substantial point is that this has been a major political problem facing the Government for a considerable time, and there is not the least doubt that they have had it well in view and have constantly postponed it. I therefore cannot accept a last-minute difficulty in the basis of valuation as sufficient excuse for not having done something about this matter a good deal earlier. The difficulty about proceeding on a pre-war valuation, apart from any question of amount, is that it becomes more and more unreal and more and more difficult to work with every year we go forward.
The Government ought long ago to have faced up to the problem of what was the fair thing to do as between these three different classes of ratepayers. They have not done so. We are told now that there is not sufficient evidence of a market valuation. The reason for that is the

Rent Act, and nothing but the Rent Act. As the right hon. Gentleman quite clearly showed, it is his own measures which have now brought him into such a position that there is no real open market on which to value.
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a very good illustration of what is happening. I have seen today a bulletin about house prices, issued by the Cooperative Permanent Building Society. The Society takes three classes of houses. Class 1 are the thoroughly good modern houses. Class 2 are what I might call reasonable houses. Class 3 are thoroughly bad houses with really little future. In the country as a whole exactly what one would expect has happened. Comparing the quarter ended 31st December, 1957, with the quarter ended 31st December, 1958, we find a small rise of 2 per cent. in the value of the really good houses; there has been a rise of 4 per cent. in the middling houses and a rise of only 1 per cent. in the really bad houses.
When one looks at the crowded part of the country, what does one find? In London—and we all know the housing problems of London—the good and the middling houses have risen respectively by 1 per cent. and by 3 per cent. Since this index is based on the prices of resale with vacant possession, the really bad houses in London have risen during that one year by no less than 13 per cent. On the North-East Coast, where, again, there are real and peculiar housing difficulties, one gets the same sort of picture. There has been a rise of 4 per cent. in the good houses, 1 per cent. in the middling houses and no less than 9 per cent. in the really had houses.
Partly owing to the failure of the Government to encourage public or council housing and partly owing to the disturbance caused by the Rent Act, people have been forced to buy these baddish houses in the crowded towns, but not in the rest of the country where the effects have not been so bad. The result is that, in the really crowded and congested urban areas, such as London and parts of the north-east of England, there has been an altogether disproportionate rise in the value with vacant possession of the worst house.
With it goes the other side of the picture. The former occupants of those


houses have been forced either to buy or to accept exceedingly onerous leases, leases on terms which are often too high in rent and almost invariably impose on the tenant a burden of repairs that he cannot possibly carry. It is that pressure, due to the Rent Act, that has upset the market in houses. It has resulted naturally in an artificial state of affairs. What is the indication that anything will ever be done in 1963 if it rests with the party opposite?
Let me take the Economist's views, to which I have referred. I want to trouble the House with the first paragraph, because it is very sound criticism indeed:
The Government's decision to postpone from 1961 to 1963 the next valuation of property for rating carries a definite whiff of political cowardice.
I suppose I have a more sensitive nose. I should say it stank of it. They could have dealt with this years ago if they had wanted to.
Then, after dealing with the present position, the article says:
The Minister has now stated that this year is too soon after the decontrol of several hundred thousand houses under the Rent Act to get a fair picture of current house rents. One trouble about this argument is that it might be extended indefinitely. More than 4 million working class houses still remain controlled.
I call the attention of the House to the next sentence:
Although it hates to be reminded of the fact, the Government (if it stays in office) should certainly be hoping to decontrol a further batch of these houses in the next few years.
I can put that sentence a good deal more clearly. At the Conservative Conference at Llandudno, just before the Rent Act was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor told the Conservative Party quite clearly that the Government proposed to remove control altogether. The Rent Bill was only the first stage in that. It contained in one of its subsections power to go further and practically to complete decontrol simply by administrative order, subject to affirmative Resolution. There is not the least doubt that, if the Tory Party is returned at the next General Election, it will proceed almost at once to decontrol the remainder of the controlled houses in the country. It has said so, and we have no reason to disbelieve it. It has taken power to itself to that end.
The result will be that the difficulty which is now caused by the extent of decontrol that the Government have already put through will recur again when they put the next stage through, and again after that and again after that We do not know, and we have not been told, when they hope to have completed the process. So long as that threat is there, it is impossible to say that in 1963 or at any other particular date the market will be settled, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. It is he who has unsettled it.
What has the right hon. Gentleman to look at now for the houses which will give an indication of real market value? He cannot, he rightly says, look at owner-occupied houses. He cannot, as he again rightly says, look at the publicly-owned houses. He cannot look at the houses which are still rent controlled, or so he tells us. I am not very clear why, but he tells us that. Therefore, he is left with the houses which were decontrolled under the Act and even those, as he rightly pointed out, were subject to negotiations which—these are my words—were negotiations under duress and do not represent a fair result as regards rent or as regards liability for repairs.
All that the right hon. Gentleman has to go on, so he told us, is the number of houses which fell into decontrol year after year owing to changes in ownership or by people leaving the house and in that way creating a new tenancy. No doubt that number will increase. What use will that be if further measures of decontrol—promised measures or threatened measures, call them what you like—will come in should the party opposite return to power?
Therefore, I start looking at the Bill from a different angle. The difficulty about this valuation arises out of the Rent Act. The limitation of this small number of houses arises out of the Rent Act. The postponement to 1963 will not be much use if, as we are told, other houses are to be decontrolled should the Conservatives be returned to power at the next General Election. The Conservatives do not like the mention of the next General Election, so do not let us say much more about it.
I hate upsetting the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, who intimated that he would bring the Bill in by giving a


Written Answer, which prevented anybody asking him a few questions about it. Then he introduced it as a small Bill and with the maximum of quietness. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he always wishes to blush unseen, but at the end of the day he is obliged to blush for his own misdeeds.
Perhaps I may now continue with my quotation from the Economist:
Further, that"—
decontrol—
could provide an occasion or pretext for further delay in rating revaluation. The cynical may also reflect that if valuers can still perform the contortions necessary to refer everything to a 1939 basis they could surely apply equal ingenuity to the detection of current values.
I absolutely agree with that. At present, the Government are putting through Parliament another Bill—I only mention it— relating to building societies, and furthering them in their task of making advances on houses. That presupposes that there is something like a reasonable market value for the houses on which the advances are to be made. The indications one gets about prices show changes, but they are explicable changes, and I find it very difficult indeed to understand why the real reason for this is the technical difficulty of not being able to make valuations at the moment or, if that is the real reason, why things are to be any better at the date to which we are asked to postpone the revaluation.
I come back to another conclusion, and a much simpler one. The Government ought to have faced up to the problem of rating as between householders and shop and office owners and industrialists at a much earlier stage. As it is, they have taken it in bits and pieces, as they have been pressed from time to time. It is not a very creditable performance. When we discussed the Bill dealing with shop and office property we on this side said that it would enure not for the benefit of small shopkeepers but for that of the owners of large stores, blocks of offices, banks, insurance companies and the rest —and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has just pointed out to me, when they tackled that part of the legislation dealing with industrialists it was only to enable the Treasury to take two-thirds of the proceeds.
The Government have never faced up to this present question at all. We may

hear many things today, but one thing I am sure we shall not hear from the right hon. Gentleman, and that is what he proposes to do in 1963 in relation to the domestic occupier—the domestic ratepayer, as I call him. About that, I am quite certain that we shall not hear anything from the Minister today. And if the Parliamentary Secretary follows his usual practice at the end of the debate, and ask us what we intend to do about it, I can only say that I have already given him one broad hint, but let me tell him two things.
First, we are pledged, as this Government were pledged in 1956, to a comprehensive review of local government finance. We intend to do it. The Government have not done it. Secondly, let me say that it is up to the Government to tell us what they intend to do, when the time comes, before asking us our intentions when we cease to be the Opposition and become the Government. Or is it that the party opposite has so completely given up hopes of any success at the next General Election that it has merely pushed the baby a little further on so that we may carry it from its extreme youth, or even from when it is conceived in what I might call the revaluation womb? I suspect that the latter may possibly be the reason.
I shall not say much about the rest of the Bill. The outstanding objection to Clause 1 (3), and an objection immediately taken by local authorities is that, as it stands, the local authorities are unable to make any proposal whatever, except, of course, to include a new subject in the valuation list. That is to say, changes may be made from time to time without the local authorities having any power at all to intervene. That was a power that they secured with some difficulty, and one that they value as necessary for the proper performance of their local government functions. We shall have to discuss this in Committee. For the moment, the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has successfully united all our local authorities in objecting to this removal of a power that was thought to be, and has been found to be necessary in the past—and which is now to be removed for a period of uncertain duration, but, at least, until 1963.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that Section 8 of the 1955 Act


was brought in at the last moment. It has created a great deal of difficulty in its application, and I feel sure that I was not the only hon. Member in the House to welcome the appointment of a committee to consider the matter. All I would say now is that we shall have to consider further whether it is really necessary to tie the solution of this question to the larger one of the postponement of the valuation altogether.
As matters are, I quite understand the difficulty of the Government. I understand rather less clearly some of the difficulty in the Valuation Office. I do not believe it to be insuperable—as the Economist hints in the sentence I have just quoted. However, the Government's difficulty I do indeed appreciate, and I say that it is entirely their own fault. It is they who have refused in the past to face up to this question. It is they who, by their own legislation and its effects, have caused the difficulties that now trouble the valuation office. That is the position.
We do not know when the next election is to be—unless the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary is to tell us today, which seems improbable—but, as matters stand, I can, at the moment, see the political wisdom of running away from this problem for the time being. I can see that, as matters now stand—

Mr. Gower: rose—

Mr. Mitchison: Let me, at least, finish my sentence—there may well be no other choice open to the Government. If we were to refuse, or to attempt to refuse, to pass this Bill today, the only result would be to leave the valuation lists to appear in October, 1960, the new assessments to come in in the spring of 1961, and to face the country with that. On the other side of the picture, we would have a Government that had not said a word about what they were to do to meet the social problem that is involved, and constantly involved, in the relation of the domestic ratepayer to the industrial and the office ratepayer in matters of valuation.

Mr. Cower: At the point when I tried to intervene—and I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way—I thought that it was singularly inappropriate that he should refer to my

right hon. Friend as one who might be running away from an unpopular thing. I know of no Minister who has tackled so courageously things that he deemed to be necessary.

Mr. Mitchison: I had finished what I had to say, Mr. Speaker, but where the Economist finds a definite whiff of political cowardice, I find real political cowardice, not so much in this Bill as in the omission to deal with this problem at a much earlier stage. I find some political cowardice in it now. I think that a really able Minister might, even at the last moment, succeed in persuading the Prime Minister to put off the General Election until the last possible moment and let us know what he intends to do about this. But the one thing that we shall not hear from the courageous and right hon. Gentleman today is how he proposes to rate the domestic ratepayer if his party comes back into power.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to rest his case very largely on the very authoritative articles in The Times and the Economist. However much these newspapers may know about this problem, I prefer to rest my arguments on the advice of the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue which has spoken quite categorically on this matter. It has not given one piece of advice or another, but has left my right hon. Friend no alternative but to deal with this matter in the way he proposes.
My right hon. Friend has perfectly rightly described this as a postponement Bill. Rating and valuation has frequently been postponed in the past by all political parties, so I do not think that there is anything wrong in describing this as a postponement Bill, which, in fact. it is. However, the object underlying the postponement is extremely important. It is to enable us to have a correct and equitable valuation in 1963. This revaluation is a major step. It is the step which will use current values for all types of property which are to be valued —for domestic hereditaments, for commercial undertakings and for industrial undertakings as well. That is the major underlying step so that all will be brought on to a current basis.
Looking back over the recent history of these valuations and revaluations—I make no party capital out of this point— the Local Government Act, 1948, which was brought in by the party opposite when in power, had two bases of valuation for domestic hereditaments. All pre-1918 hereditaments, large houses and some flats, were to be valued on a 1939 basis. Those hereditaments had come into being thirty years before. Post-1918 hereditaments were to be valued on a formula basis, based on the cost of construction. That formula was ingenious, but on the face of it, when the position came to be assessed, it did not work out equitably. That was the great difficulty.
That formula basis was never implemented and was overtaken by the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, which amended the basis of valuation to the basis which we have at the present time, namely, the mid-1939 basis. It has been said that this 1939 basis is not a good basis for the present time, but I would say that it is, indeed, a good basis, because mid-1939 was the last time at which there was a sufficiently large band of decontrolled houses to get a realistic assessment of rent in a free market.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a reasonable basis. I should like to know whether he has heard any of the evidence given before the Lands Tribunals when both sides have tried to get back to this 1939 basis. If the hon. Gentleman had done so he would not have come to this conclusion.

Mr. Temple: I said that it is a realistic basis at the present time because mid-1939 was the last time when there was a sufficiently large band of houses available to be assessed on that rental basis. Since that time, rent control has been operating and the band in the free market has been too small.
The Bill has the objective of reassessing all hereditaments on the one basis. My right hon. Friend has said that according to the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue there are only 2 per cent. of hereditaments which can form the basis of an assessment at the present time and that that percentage is too small. But we have heard it quoted that as the Rent Act operates 125,000 houses per annum

will come out of control and, therefore, by 1961, when the valuations will be made under this Bill, if this Bill is enacted—

Mr. Mitchison: By 1963.

Mr. Temple: The valuations will be made in 1961 and will come into operation in 1963. They were to be made in 1959, to come into operation in 1961. By 1961, a good sample will be available. With 125,000 houses coming out of control—that is, in the band below £30 rateable value in the provinces and £40 rateable value in London—approximately half a million houses will be available in that band. That will be taken as a basis for valuation by the rating and valuation officers. One thing which would be certain to distort the values would be if the party opposite should get into power and should bring into operation its big schemes for the municipalisation of house properties, because the free market value basis would be destroyed and there would be no current market basis on which to form this valuation.
I should like to refer to an item in the Schedule to the Bill. In the Schedule, we have reaffirmed the principle that these subsequent revaluations are to be quinquennial. If it is absolutely necessary to make these revaluations quinquennial it will be extremely costly. As everyone knows, house properties are reasonably constant in value. When one has got this whole valuation basis to a basis of current market values, I should think that a valuation every seven years might be sufficient.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Gentleman need not worry. He will not get revaluation every five years. We never have had it and we never shall have.

Mr. Temple: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for supporting my argument. I am not often supported from the other side of the Chamber so readily as that. I am reinforced in what I am about to say.
All the life offices—and the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) knows a great deal about this matter—when they are considering valuations for their funds, normally prefer to use a quinquennial valuation basis. It is nothing like such a task to value life offices commitments as it is for the valuation


offices to value in England and Wales alone 14 million domestic hereditaments, quite apart from the industrial and commercial hereditaments as well.
Serious consideration should be given to the advisability of substituting in this Bill the figure 7 for the figure 5. Then we shall have accepted as a principle that market values for houses are reasonably constant, and I am sure that it would give great satisfaction throughout the country if the figure 7 could be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: Since the hon. Gentleman seems to know about life office valuations, would he tell us whether they are finding any difficulty in valuing their properties at present?

Mr. Temple: I was not dealing with the difficulty or otherwise of valuation. What I am saying is that life offices regard a five-year period as the correct period at which to value their investments. The only point that I was deducing was that if they value at five-yearly intervals, and their task is not so great as that which would confront the Inland Revenue, then, indeed, the Inland Revenue basis of valuation of property might be over a longer period.
Having said that, may I say that I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, because one can see that at the end of the day valuation of all properties will be on a current market basis. It will be based on such a wide sample of values that justice will be seen to be done all round. The question of accuracy of values is very important. After the last valuations we had 650,000 appeals. I would say that if this postponement takes place the number of appeals will be kept to a minimum.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said that valuations have frequently been postponed in the past. That is true. Valuation lists are the most postponed things in Britain. Only the millennium has been postponed more times for good reasons. At the rate we are going, the millennium will come before we get valuation on a current market basis.
When this matter was considered in the 1953 Measure I was heavily on the side of the Establishment. I made speeches then in support of adopting the 1939 basis

of values, and they were so lengthy and so convincing that the then Minister, the present Prime Minister, and the then Parliamentary Secretary, the present Postmaster-General, excused themselves from making any speeches in Committee on the ground that I had made much better ones in support of the Bill than they could have done.
That was most disconcerting to my hon. Friends, and I abstained from voting on Second Reading, and abstained from Divisions during the Committee stage, because I was convinced in 1953 that there was no alternative to the 1939 basis of valuation for residential property. I joined issue with my right hon. and hon. Friends, who said that valuations on a current values basis were possible. I now beg to announce that I am no longer on the side of the Establishment. The Ministry cannot rely on me this time, because 1953 was a long time ago and a great deal has happened since then.
The Minister has said that it was the aim of both sides of the House to get back to current rental values for rating assessments. Get back? We have never been on them. Never since 1925 have we been on current market values for rating and valuation purposes. The right hon. Gentleman read out the definition of annual value in the 1925 Act as if it was of importance in this connection. but he will remember that, when the valuations were made on current value under the 1925 Act, the political cowardice of the Government of the day compelled the valuation authorities to fiddle with their valuations to please the owner-occupiers, and were backed heavily by the building societies, who said, "Our clients will never be able to keep up their mortgage repayments if you soak them to the extent of these new valuations."
I remember all that, and I was not in the House, but the right hon. Gentleman talks about: getting back to the current values basis as if we have been on it. I suggest that the Minister's approach to this matter is quite unrealistic.
The Minister has given us the opinion of the Valuation Office. This is not some unexpected and divine revelation of the state of affairs in the world of rents that no one could foresee. In 1953, when the revaluation on current rental values was fixed for 1961, it was presumably


the then Ministers expectation that it would be possible to have a revaluation on that basis. We were told that the 1939 value was only an interim measure, that it was only something inescapable in the circumstances of the moment, but a continuation of the 1939 values is apparently now something equally inescapable in the circumstances of the moment.
Current values was the aim, and we were to get to it in 1961. In fact, the evidence upon which we were to get the current value basis in 1961 was much less flimsy in 1953, when the Minister expected that we could achieve that, than is the position today, unless the present Minister of Housing and Local Government had some foresight as to the kind of rent control legislation that was going to be introduced some years afterwards, but the present Prime Minister made no forecast about rent control. In fact, subsequent to 1953, assurances were given about maintaining rent control, yet, despite that, it was expected that by 1961 it would be possible to get back, to use the words of the Minister, to current values.
I do not know what the Valuation Office has said to the right hon. Gentleman. I can only take his word for it. I think that what he did was to go to the valuation officers and say, "Now, you boys, can you find a lot of reasons why we should postpone revaluation in 1961?", and they found him quite a lot. The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the valuation officers. The Valuation Office can value anything. They could value the right hon. Gentleman, and then knock 20 per cent. off to keep it in line with the assessments of commercial properties.
Let us look at all the difficulties of valuing on the 1939 basis by many people who have never had experience of it. While I admit that there will be difficulties about valuations whenever they are made, I do not believe that a revaluation on some different basis from that of 1939 values is impossible today.
The rating situation at present is obviously unsatisfactory. Nobody is paying on current value today. House property is assessed on 1939 values, commercial properties are on current values, less 20 per cent., industrial properties are on current values, less 50 per cent., and

agricultural land and buildings are not rated at all. That is the present position on rating. What disturbances of the balance of the rate burden between residential, commercial and industrial properties have taken place in the last twenty or twenty-five years I do not know. An article in The Times gave some figures, but as long as we continue this unrealistic position in rating we shall never get the balance right.
I suggest to the Minister that it would have been possible to have had a revaluation on 1960 values. After all, there are different values of property today from those of 1953, and they are different values from those of 1939. The whole level of rents has increased in recent months, and, although the Minister says that the market has not settled down and it is not yet clear what the new rental basis will be for many properties, both in and out of control, I suggest that there was something interim to be found to bring rating assessments more into line with current rentals than 1939 values will be.
If the right hon. Gentleman had found it possible to do that he could then have adjusted the concession given on current values both for commercial and industrial premises. There is nothing sacrosanct about the present discount for commercial and industrial premises, but the Minister seems to want to go from 1939 values to current values in one leap. Whenever he is able to make that leap, he wants to make it at one go. I believe that wanting to make it in one leap will almost indefinitely postpone his making it at all. He will never get within leaping distance without serious social and political difficulties, and I believe that this postponement Bill is not a postponement until 1963, but is an almost indefinite postponement of revaluation.

Mr. Temple: Mr. Temple indicated dissent.

Mr. Houghton: I see that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but can he tell me when the last revaluation was for purposes of Schedule A Income Tax, when the next one will be, or whether there is any prospect of there ever being one? Valuations are postponed indefinitely.

Mr. Temple: I think that the last assessments for Schedule A Income Tax were in 1925, as the hon. Gentleman should know.

Mr. Houghton: They were, in fact, in 1935, and there has not been one since. It is true that excess rents were taken care of by special provisions in the Income Tax Act, but the point that I am making is that the whole history of valuations is in favour of postponement. It would be quite a mistake for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to think that there could be any real intention behind holding a revaluation in readiness for 1963, because, on his own showing, unless there is substantial further rent decontrol, the level of rents of the vast majority of controlled houses will be the same then as they are now.
I suggest that the basis of valuation will have to be nearer to the controlled rental level than to the free market level to give equity in the basis of valuation among residential properties. The Minister really has his basis of valuation there now. It will be no different and no better in 1961 or 1962. I believe that it may be further confused and made difficult because many of the rentals of decontrolled houses will have broken away from their present moorings. That is my opinion, and I think it a great pity that we should be postponing revaluation once again. I believe that the Minister could have found something which would have got us nearer to current values than the result of merely sticking to 1939 values for a further period.
In my opinion, the Valuation Office has, perhaps, been a little too modest about its capacity for hypothetical valuations, even in present circumstances. For rating purposes we have always had a good deal of hypothesis in the valuation. It is always the hypothetical tenant, never the real one, never the actual tenant. They have been 1939 values based on the condition and environment of the property today, not as it was in 1939; it has been projected back to 1939 to achieve some sort of assessment of the property in its present condition and environment had it been left in 1939. There is always a great deal of hypothesis, yet the current revaluation was carried through with astonishingly little difficulty, considering the magnitude of the task and the big changes which were brought about.
If we were to find the 1959 or 1960 level, something related to the changes in rentals which have taken place since

the Rent Act, with a consequent adjustment of concessions given to commercial and industrial premises, that would have been a more realistic and a bolder attempt to make sense out of the rating situation today. Although I understand that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not propose to divide against the Bill tonight, I shall not be perverse on this occasion and insist on doing so myself.

4.53 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I always listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on rating matters. With most of what he said I largely agree, but I do not wish to talk about industrial premises, commercial premises or residential premises. I wish to speak about a fourth category, namely, properties belonging to charities. In effect, I am directing attention to Clause 2 of the Bill.
As my right hon. Friend said, a great many of those properties were sympathetically assessed in the past, and, in 1955, enjoyed sympathetic assessments. All over the country and in our universities there are very many buildings owned by charities which are devoted to education, and these buildings continue now on the basis of those sympathetic or charitable assessments of 1955.
Under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, the 1955 assessments stood in the sense that, until a notice was served by the local authorities on those concerned, they were allowed to continue to pay nothing more than they were paying in 1955. There had then been reassessment on the basis of residential premises, involving the ridiculous postulate that one could find a hypothetical tenant who would take for occupation some enormous college building capable of housing 300 or 400 people. Of course, these reassessments made enormous increases on the sympathetic assessments previously enjoyed.
As I understand it, Clause 2 of the Bill really means that the sympathetic assessments of 1955 will stand now until 1963. This will give all those concerned in the administration of educational and other charities an extra period of years during which arrangements can possibly be made. I know that the whole case for educational buildings has been raised before the Pritchard Committee, and I think


that it is unfortunate that we should be discussing Clause 2 before the Committee has reported. I rise merely to ask my right hon. Friend whether I am right in assuming that the effect of the Bill is that, for those charitable educational bodies, the 1955 assessments will stand until 1963.

Mr. H. Brooke: I was not giving any pledge on behalf of this Government or a future Government that there would be no further legislation on this subject until 1963. If, for instance, the Pritchard Committee brings forward recommendations which are generally acceptable, and which can be passed quickly into law, something may be done; but this will hold the position until 1963 unless further legislation is passed meanwhile.

Sir P. Spens: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. That will give very great satisfaction to very many people who are concerned with educational charities of this sort.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: The main reflection which many of us have to the introduction of the Bill is that it demonstrates once again the totally inadequate nature of the basis of local government finance in Britain.
Some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), have drawn attention repeatedly to the quite extraordinary, complicated and inequitable system from which local authorities have to draw their revenues. It is a system which penalises the careful landlord or owner, for the better he keeps his premises the higher will be the rental value which the hereditament will attract. On the other hand, a slum owner or improvident landlord whose property deteriorates is benefited because his property attracts a lesser rental value. It is a system which pays a bonus to the careless or the antisocial.
Apart from the inequitable basis of our present rating formula, there is the sheer technical difficulty of valuation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred. Those of us who had some differences with him over the 1939 basis of valuation, particularly during the Committee stage of the 1953 Act, very much welcome him into our ranks today. He has, I think, shown

considerable courage in admitting that, even if he was right then, he takes a different view about the problem today, and it is in that sense that I welcome and accept his speech.
Owners and revenue authorities today have no clear yardstick regarding the valuation of domestic properties, on which they have to adjudicate. One has only to try to imagine the difficulties of creating what the real rental values were in 1939, that is, twenty years ago, to realise what an impossible task it is. The fact that this system is to be postponed for at least two years means that the difficulties will increase, the disputes will become greater and ratepayers' dissatisfaction will mount. I can see very little diminution in the number of appeals that all this will entail.
It is an extraordinary requirement that in estimating the rental value of domestic property today—that under the 1953 Act—we have to consider what a district was like twenty years ago with all the amenities that now exist and to assume that in 1939 they did exist, while, on the other hand, things of value which do not exist today are to be excluded. One has to ignore overcrowding, on the one hand, and rent control, on the other. As I said in the Second Reading debate on 21st May, 1953, and on several occasions in Committee, this is not really a task for valuers but an assignment for magicians. The fact that, on the whole, the Valuation Office has managed to get so many agreements is a tribute to its fair sense if not to its skill, for it is not so much a matter of skill as one of common sense.
This is an extremely difficult formula for all concerned and the present debate gives me the opportunity to refer to an example which occurred in my own constituency and which, I hope, may help when any additional amending legislation is introduced. I had recent experience of a case in Hayes, where 1,200 council houses had been revalued. By some quite extraordinary oversight the fact that all the houses had electricity was unnoticed by those carrying out the valuation. I make no general attack upon the valuation officers, because they had this very difficult task to do and were working under very high pressure indeed. On the other hand, it is very strange that the fact that these 1,200 houses had electricity was not known.
When the matter came to the notice of the local valuation office the assessments were increased by £2 per dwelling. Many of us thought that the assessments were wrong—a view to which the Lands Tribunal ultimately came—but the difficulty was in trying to fight the case on the basis of rental values before the war. One had to try to get back to what an average housewife would have preferred in 1939, when there were fewer electric gadgets such as hair driers and vacuum cleaners and try to assess whether she would have preferred a hot water system both upstairs and down in preference to electric light in those days.
We were able to produce some evidence to show that that was, indeed the case because some tenants refused to have electricity even at a very low cost and preferred to have a domestic hot water system. I cite this case as an example of how this complicated renting formula can go wrong to show how farcical it is to try to assume how people reacted in a financial sense to the facts of twenty years ago to get a valuation today.
When one seriously thinks about these matters one realises that our valuation system which is so traditional has little else worth while. It is surely time that there was some simplification, or, as many of us on this side of the House think— although it would not be in order to follow this up this afternoon—that an altogether different basis of valuation was introduced.
The Government must, of course, carry the primary responsibility for today's difficulties because, apart from what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said about the effect of the Rent Act on rental valuations it is the fact that the Government were fully warned in 1953 about the difficulties of returning to the domestic values of 1939. It is not often that one can claim prophetic vision, but I said in the Second Reading debate on the 1953 Act, that I thought this system would break down as it broke down before. I said that that would break down and we should have postponement, as we did in 1938, of the valuation which was to take place in 1939 and 1940.
I asked the present Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Housing

and Local Government, whether he really thought that it would work. I asked him this on two occasions, and on the first occasion he gave me a rather frivolous reply, which later he admitted was frivolous, to the effect that the valuers had devised it and that it ought to work. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman again, he said that he had answered in a somewhat frivolous way, and then went on to say:
What I meant was that Ministers are but dim and transient phantoms who flit across the stage, and that these men who are uphappy enough to have devoted their lives to valuing will have to carry out this work long after I have forgotten all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 30th June, 1953; c. 113.]
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten about it, but we are force-ably reminded of it and so are the valuation officers and domestic and commercial property owners who are concerned with paying rates now. The fact is that the Government really took no notice of the warnings given in 1953, and that is another reason for this postponing Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said, in this matter we have had a whole series of postponements—1939, 1952 and now this postponement. I shall be very surprised if we get the present valuation lists implemented without a further postponement. Indeed, I hope that before then we shall get a new basis of valuation altogether, which will be fairer.
Having said that, I wish to make one further point. Though the valuers have no real yardstick of valuation for much of their work on domestic property, they have done the job. It seems to me a little unfair then to blame them for the fact that there is to be a postponement. I believe that there are other reasons. I do not know whether it has anything to do with the General Election, but I cannot think that the postponement is due to the Valuation Office.
I will end as I began, by saying that the Bill provides further eloquent proof of the unfairness, the complications and the difficulties of the present system. Today, not a single class of property owner is, in fact, paying upon the full value of his property. Shops have one value—80 per cent. of current value— houses another value for 1939 values, and


industry is paying only a minor proportion towards the services which it receives from local authorities. On a previous occasion, I showed how some industries spend thirty, forty or fifty times as much every year on advertisements as they contribute towards the local Government services from which they benefit like everybody else. I hope that the time will come, even if the present Government will not act, when we shall have an alternative system which will be fairer as between one ratepayer and another.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) commented on some of the anomalies of the rating and valuation system. He implied in some of his remarks a criticism of that system. I can understand that, but he will appreciate, I am sure, that this has long been a difficult matter and that when the 1948 Act was introduced by the Government of his party they reverted to the 1939 formula in respect of certain classes of houses.

Mr. Lindgren: Under the 1948 Act a very complicated basis of valuation was brought in, and that was subsequently altered by the Government after 1951.

Mr. Gower: They resorted to what the hon. Member has called a very complicated formula. That is a fair summing up of the position. It is not an easy matter to settle or to solve.
The point which I particularly want to make is that the question of basis is a long-term matter which is not to be treated in the present Bill. This Bill deals with certain aspects of machinery, and, in discussing that, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made a highly imaginative speech in which he peered into the glass to find anything which he thought was frightening or calculated to cause despondency to certain electors. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who always speaks in an informed and interesting way on these subjects, appeared to imply, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, that the reason given by the Valuation Office was largely bogus. I was surprised that he should contend that that was the case. I am prepared to accept from my right hon. Friend that this is a long and difficult

job, and surely it is not unreasonable that the Government should say that it is a job which cannot properly, efficiently and fairly be carried out in the time originally contemplated for its completion.
For my part, I have found that the chief complaint is not that valuations are too late or take place too infrequently, I should like valuations to take place less frequently. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) suggested seven years. I would say that they should not be more frequent than ten years. Like the changes made by the Boundary Commission, I do not think that they should take place too often.

Mr. Lindgren: They have hardly been too frequent. We have waited twenty-one years, from 1935 to 1956.

Mr. Gower: The chief complaint of my constituents is that some time ago they had to face a change in the basis of the rates which they had to pay, and I am sure that they would not like a change every five years, as suggested. A much longer period should be written into a Bill introduced at a very early date.
There is not only complaint about the time. Another complaint is that the system as it is at present, administered centrally, takes too little account of local conditions. I confess that the former system, perhaps, had its own grave faults and there was a very strong case for having a central, broad valuation for the whole country. The complaint which I find most prevalent among people in my constituency with whom I have discussed this matter is that the system is too rigid and takes too little account of the circumstances prevailing in a particular locality.
The hon. Member for Sowerby also made the point that there is uncertainty in rental values at present, and, like his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, he partly attributed this to Government policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman, indeed, developed the argument that it was largely due to the Rent Act and the changes in rent which resulted from it. I respectfully suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there would surely be uncertainty if the policy of his own party were applied— for example, if there were a sudden, wholesale municipalisation of rented houses, or even if such a scheme were introduced more gradually. In either case, there would be a considerable effect on rating valuations.
I think that my right hon. Friend was quite right in saying that this Measure is essential. It is better that we should postpone this operation and do it carefully and properly rather than rush it, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering seemed to advocate.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I should like to express agreement with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) to the extent that obviously something must be done. Whether the mere postponement of valuation lists for two years is the best thing to be done is another matter.
The main reason which the Minister gave for this Measure is that at present there is not a big enough free market in residential property to allow the valuation officers to gather the material which they require for the preparation of lists to come into operation on 1st April, 1961. The Minister went further and told us that there would appear to be at present about 2 per cent. of domestic hereditaments which had their rents fixed in a relatively free market, and that the figure required is about 10 per cent. to enable the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue to do their job.
I should like to know how we shall get 10 per cent. of that sector in a free market by 1961. The work will commence in 1961, so that it is by 1961 that we must have the 10 per cent. to which the Minister referred, in exactly the same way as he is now saying that in 1959 we have to have the 10 per cent. free market to have the lists ready for 1961. The Minister is saying that, based on some calculation best known to himself, we should have this 10 per cent. free market in 1961. The valuation officers will then be able to get to work and supply valuation lists to come into operation in 1963.
How will the size of that free market increase from 2 to 10 per cent. over the next two years? There are the 125,000 houses which have been mentioned as coming out of rent control by normal movements or by death of tenants and things of that nature, but we are talking of about 13 million domestic hereditaments, and 125,000 of them, even over two years, to make the ¼ million, will

not go very far to bring the present 2 per cent. up to 10 per cent.
The other factor which I suppose the Minister hopes will enable this figure to come nearer to the 10 per cent. level is that in the next two years some, but not all, of the three-year agreements entered into under the Rent Act, 1957, will come to an end. He apparently assumes that the majority of these agreements will be renewed for another period, and that that will bring him nearer to the 10 per cent. I still do not think that, even if all the agreements were renewed, that will bring him up to the 10 per cent. Unless other legislation is brought in, it is most likely that once the: three-year agreements come to an end a large proportion of the properties will go out of the rental market altogether and will be put up for sale by their owners and, by sale with vacant possession, become owner-occupied. This will not help in any great measure to increase the percentage.
Unless we can have a more detailed explanation how we shall change in two years from a 2 per cent. free market in domestic hereditaments to the 10 per cent. which the Minister has told us is desirable and necessary before the job is done—and the present figures do not support the contention at all—we can only assume that, with an election some time this year or the early part of next year, we shall see action taken under the appropriate Section of the Rent Act, 1957, to decontrol more rented houses. If the Minister is honest with the House, I think he will say that that is what he has in mind.
As far as I can see, it is the only way in which it would be possible to guarantee a free market in 10 per cent. of the residential hereditaments within the next two years. We now have an indirect statement by the responsible Minister that by 1961 the area of decontrol in rented dwellings will have been considerably increased and that by then they hope to be able to carry out a revaluation. I see no other way of reaching the 10 per cent. figure, which the Minister himself said is necessary by that time, without further decontrol of rented property.
I agree with quite a lot of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) concerning other and, perhaps, better ways of doing this task. It might well be difficult for


the valuation officers, with only 2 per cent. of the properties to consider, now to fix current rental values for property to come into operation in 1961. The task that they had to do in 1956, however, was even more difficult. They had to work out, as my hon. Friend said, what a hypothetical tenant would be prepared to pay by way of annual rent for a property in 1939, provided that the surroundings were the same as actually surrounded it in 1956, that the tenant was responsible for the payment of rates and that the landlord was responsible for repairs and insurance—all of this in 1939. We might just as well throw in the proviso that the moon was made of blue cheese and that the sun never set on the British Empire during a whole period of twenty-four hours. This would have just about as much relevance as many of the factors which had to be taken into account.
That was done and we had a hypothetical value as well, for that was all it was. Had the Minister wanted, it would have been possible to have revaluation in 1961 and to put local government finance back upon a rather more stable footing. It would have been possible to have a short Bill, not the present one, but one that would lay down definite guidance to the valuation officers—it need hardly have been anything like as complicated as the guidance issued with the 1953 Act—so that they could get on with the job of revaluing domestic hereditaments in England and Wales on a basis laid down by Parliament, which might even have been—and I would like to consider this further—the Government's own assumption that a reasonable rent was twice the 1939 gross value. Something of that nature could have been brought in.
I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby that the further we get away from 1939, the more difficult it will be to go in one step from 1939 value to whatever happens to be current value at the particular time. The Government should have taken the opportunity here and now of taking a step towards arriving at current rental value.
I am extremely disappointed that the job is to be postponed, because it was only a short while ago, two years or so, that the Minister came to the House and

said that having undertaken a full review of local government finance, and having in that review come to the conclusion that it was neither possible nor desirable to have alternative forms of income or other local taxes for the local authorities, the local authorities would have to rely for their main income upon the rating system.
I do not want to comment on the arguments either way concerning alternative forms of revenue. On the whole, I tend to support the Government on that line. At the moment, I see no alternative to the rating system. The Government, however, having told the House and the country—and having taken through Parliament a Local Government Act which settles the matter effectively for several years—that the local authorities must rely upon the rating system for their own income, have a duty to ensure that in the rating system the local authorities have a proper, workable and adequate system of local government finance. Instead, they are pushing off for at least another two years the time when the local authorities will have something like current values for the property from which they have to obtain revenue. I look forward to the day when, as many hon. Members have said, we can have current valuations for all property in the rating list. I do not think that they will come as such a shock to many occupiers of domestic property in quite a large part of the country.
Obviously, on the day that domestic property is rated at its current level, we must have current level valuations for the payment of rates for both industrial and commercial property, and the incidence of the larger share of the burden having to be met by industrial and commercial property will to a certain extent—although not completely, as it will vary from one part of the country to another —iron out the blow to the residential hereditament. That would bring us from the 1939 value to the current value in one sweep.
I should like to know what is to happen concerning the Valuation Department when we have this two-year delay. At the moment, there is a staff of 4,444 in the Valuation Department of the Board of Inland Revenue, or 500 more staff than we had during 1955–56, when they were in the throes of preparing the valuation


lists that: were to come into operation on 1st April, 1956. I assume that, in effect, this additional 500 staff replaces the work that was being done at that time by private valuers under contract, which from time to time has been said to be roughly equivalent to the work of some 500 valuers. Presumably, therefore, the Department has sufficient staff, if given the go-ahead, to prepare a valuation list by 1st April, 1961. One can only assume that the staff is there as the money is being spent as outlined in the Estimates, with the exception of only a few thousand pounds.
At present, therefore, the Department has a staff of 4,444. I understand that amalgamations are taking place within the Department to enable other valuation staff to be used on this type of work. This will allow certain of the valuation staff not only to do rating work, but to do other work on compensation and other matters which is normally carried out in the Department.
We are spending over £4 million a year on maintaining a section of the Board of Inland Revenue, but we are told that we cannot have new valuation lists yet. I suggest that it would be much easier, both for the staff and for the Department, and much more preferable for the local authorities—and we must bear in mind that the Minister himself, in introducing the Bill, has pointed only to the difficulty of rerating domestic hereditaments—if we could have some sort of system that would enable the staff to get on with the revaluation of other hereditaments and, instead of insisting on what I regard as the stupid idea of the revaluing of all property once every five years, if we could have the new valuation lists coming out as to half one year and half two years later.
The Minister mentioned that 13½ million hereditaments were domestic ones. He did not mention that their rateable value totalled £320 million. There is, in addition, a further 2,167,000 hereditaments comprising commercial premises with the current 20 per cent. derating, including public buildings of one kind or another, valued in a rather different way, licenced premises, industrial premises and certain miscellaneous kinds of property. As compared with the 13½ million domestic hereditaments, however, these 2 million premises have a total rateable value of £290 million, or almost as much as the

13 million houses. From the point of view of the Valuation Department, of the Appeal Courts and of the Lands Tribunal, I suggest that it might be easier, if domestic hereditaments are to be revalued at the date set out in the Bill, to proceed with the revaluation of all hereditaments other than the domestic ones. The Minister has said only that there would be difficulty in assessing the value of domestic hereditaments. Why, then, postpone the revaluation of all property? Evidence is available as to the values that could be assessed for industrial and commercial property. Not only has the Minister not allowed the valuation officer to prepare complete, or even partial, lists for property other than domestic, but he is stepping in and, in the Bill, stopping the local authorities from doing some of this work themselves. If the Minister is not prepared to allow the valuation officers to do it. I do not see why he should step in at this stage and stop the energetic local authorities from doing the job. I realise that that is a messy way and not the ideal way of doing it, but the Minister is deliberately going out of his way to stop the energetic local authorities from doing the work and ending some of the gross inequalities of valuation which now exist in their areas.
On this subject, I can speak with considerable experience of the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). We have found there during the past few weeks that industrial property which was assessed in 1956 with a value of 3s. per square foot is now being let at prices in excess of 6s. per square foot. There is plenty of evidence of that and yet the Bill will stop the Acton Borough Council, or any other rating authority, from endeavouring to correct that kind of anomaly. Other evidence is also available to show that a large amount of commercial property revalued in 1956 in the greater London area is now being let at annual rents greatly in excess of those that were taken into account in fixing the value. That is without any reference to the large premiums which have to be paid at the same time.
There is plenty of evidence to show that by a simple piece of legislation, the Minister could allow the Valuation Department to prepare the valuation lists concerning this type of property and for


them to come into operation at the normal time. Not only is the Minister not doing this, but he is going out of his way to stop the local authorities from doing the job.
I should like to comment shortly on the position concerning Section 8 of the 1955 Act. The idea, as I understand it, was to preserve a measure of local discretion, with the advantage also of avoiding the need to define by Statute the bodies or organisations or charities which were to receive favourable treatment for rates. For years prior to 1956 the individual rating authorities have been doing this. They have been making allowances by sympathetic assessments, perhaps illegally but on the whole doing it satisfactorily. They have local knowledge. The then Minister of Housing and Local Government said during the Committee stage of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1955:
If we leave the discretion to local authorities to decide to which individual charitable organisations they will give exemption or remission, that allows the human element to come into play; it allows local knowledge to come into play; it allows the facts of individual cases to be assessed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 307.]
The intention was that as from 1961—or, as it turned out, 1960—the local authorities should be allowed to use that individual discretion and that local knowledge. I must express my sincere disappointment that the allowing of local initiative will be deferred now for a further period of two or three years.
I want to refer particularly to one group of organisations which has been able to claim this kind of allowance. It is, in the main, the group referred to by one hon. Gentleman opposite. I see no reason why the anomalous position of local ratepayers having to subsidise national universities should be continued for another three years under the provisions of the Bill. One has only to look through the list of local authorities to see easily that local authorities in areas of universities are the hardest hit by the effects of Section 8 of the 1955 Act.
I find that all the county boroughs losing more than 1 per cent. of their possible collectable revenue are university towns. Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter, Manchester, Liverpool, New-

castle, Nottingham all lose more than 1 per cent. of the possible amount of rates they could collect because of allowances under Section 8, a large part of which are allowances to the universities. Then we come to the real hard case of the county boroughs. The City of Oxford loses 9 per cent. of the possible rate collection for this area because of allowances made under Section 8, mainly to the university.
Five Metropolitan boroughs are losing more than 1 per cent. of the possible collectable rate, namely, Finsbury, Holborn, St. Marylebone, Stepney and St. Pancras. Many of them lose 2 per cent. or more. It is when we come to the non-county boroughs that we see authorities which have been hard hit, with Aberystwyth losing 17·3 per cent., Bangor 16·6 per cent., Cambridge 15¼ per cent., Durham 8½ per cent. and Loughborough 3·28 per cent.
I appreciate that the Minister can say that this is taken into account in the calculation of the Exchequer equalisation grant, and will be taken into account because of its effect on the rate poundage in the rate deficiency grant under the Local Government Act, 1958. This is true, and all the non-county boroughs I have mentioned benefit from that grant and therefore will receive some help for the loss they incur under Section 8. However, only six of the county boroughs receive any payment from the present Exchequer equalisation grant. I do not know how many will be helped under the new rate deficiency grant. Oxford, one of the hardest hit, is not helped by the grant and I doubt whether it will be helped by the new deficiency grant.
We must bring the provisions of this Clause to an end as soon as possible to allow those local authorities to go through the list and decide to which ones they wish to give help. The Minister told us that some 53,000 cases at present were being allowed rate remission under the provisions of Section 8. He also told us that in 31,000 cases the local authority had given notice to terminate relief. I think I can say safely that in the majority of cases where local authorities have given notice to terminate relief, they have given notice indiscriminately to every organisation at present receiving relief under Section 8.
This does not necessary mean that when 1960 or 1961 arrives—depending on whether they were fortunate or unfortunate in getting the notice served—they will refuse to give relief to all those bodies. It simply means that they are safeguarding their own position, and that in 1960 or 1961 they will look at each individual case and decide whether or not at that stage they will grant any relief, in the light of circumstances at that time and each twelve months thereafter, because they must look at the question every twelve months and decide whether to continue the relief. The Minister gave the impression that the reason for this was that many local authorities would refuse to renew relief after 1960 or 1961. I do not think that is true. I think they have served the notice to cover themselves so that they can stop giving relief if they desire to do so, but in the case of purely local charities I think they will continue to give that relief.
I can see the necessity for having some time in reserve when considering the Report of the Committee on the rating of charities when that comes along, but I was surprised to hear the Minister say today that he expected to receive that Report within the next few weeks. The Minister said he did not know what the Report would recommend. It may well be that things are in such a muddle that the Report will recommend that things are best left as they are. Nevertheless, we are to postpone it for another three years over and above the earlier date to enable the local authorities to get out of the provisions of Section 8 now. That is unfortunate, and I am sorry we are doing it today.
I repeat my hope that we can get on to full current valuation of all types of property as quickly as possible. Even if we defer this for another two years, it will have to come sooner or later in stages. I do not think that in the next valuation lists we shall get full valuation of residential hereditaments for rating purposes. I think that will be funked by the Government when the time comes, and I hope that as quickly as possible we shall restore to the rating authorities the power to make sympathetic allowances to charitable institutions in their own area, because they are the best bodies to do it and I am certain they are capable of doing it.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I listened with great interest to the Minister and was not at all convinced by some of the arguments he advanced in support of postponing the next valuation lists. In the main they did not seem to me to be valid arguments for a postponement, because most of the factors mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman which mitigated against a true valuation being made in the next valuation lists will exist at the date of the postponement suggested in the Bill.
I would not for one moment accept that it was necessary to obtain information as to free rentals in respect of only 10 per cent. of the 15½ million houses that are assessed to rates. Why the right hon. Gentleman should select 10 per cent. I do not know, but I should have thought it a totally inadequate percentage the result of which to apply to the whole of the remaining dwellings.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced certain reasons for being unable to obtain what he regarded as a realistic valuation for the lists which would normally have been in operation in 1961. His reasons were owner-occupation, local authority houses, controlled lettings, furnished lettings and the present tenancy agreements for controlled dwellings arising from the Rent Act. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expects that in three years' time all those factors which are mitigating against arriving at a free market rental will disappear. He certainly is a super-optimist if he does. I would go so far as to say that in three years' time these factors will remain, having altered little one way or the other in that period.
I know what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do with the Bill. It is most significant that the next valuation lists are to be postponed for three years.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Owing to the lack of interest which is being shown by hon. Members in the affairs of the natives of these islands, I call attention to the attendance in the Chamber.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Sparks: I do not think that the Minister's real intention in bringing forward the Bill was adequately disclosed by him in moving the Second Reading. It is significant that the postponed date will effect a great change in respect of the rents of decontrolled dwellings under the Rent Act. By that time the protection afforded by the 1958 Act, which enables the courts to intervene and suspend possession orders for three years if they feel it necessary, will come to an end. The result of the 1958 Act has been to persuade a very considerable number of landlords and property companies to enter into tenancy agreements with their tenants for a limited period of three years because they know very well that if they did not do that the chances of getting possession would be somewhat remote. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman assumes that by 1961, when the 1958 Act comes to an end and the tenancy leases of decontrolled houses have come to an end, there will be a free market in rental values. When that time is reached we shall notice, especially in areas where the housing shortage is acute, very substantial increases in rents over and above the very high rents now embodied in three-year tenancy leases. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have this development in mind in postponing the operation of the next valuation lists for three years.
I feel that the method of assessing what is generally termed free market rents is not just. In areas where there is a serious shortage of housing accommodation—this applies in and around London and in our cities and large towns—the rents charged in a free market are not reasonable ones. There is a scarcity value which landlords are able to impose upon people who are desperate for housing accommodation and who must pay what is demanded or find themselves homeless or living in one or two small rooms. Therefore, it is clear that the Government are deferring the next valuation lists because they are hoping by 1963 to have a pattern of what they call free market rents based mainly upon the coming to an end of the 1958 Act and the full play of the principles embodied in the Rent Act.
It is monstrously unfair that such a basis should be used for assessing rentals upon which householders will have to pay rates. It should also be borne in mind

that this basis of assessing free market rentals is to be applied for owner-occupation. That means that the owner-occupier will have to pay rates based on the highest possible rents that could be obtained for any property in the district in which he lives. The same rental basis is to be applied to council tenants, and the same basis will be applied to practically all the other categories of householders who are responsible for paying rates to the local authority. Therefore, there is no doubt whatever that when the period of postponement comes to an end the householders, mainly of our cities and large towns, will find themselves having to bear a very much higher proportion of the rate revenue needed for their district than they are doing now or have done at any time in the past.
I do not quite agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. North (Mr. Reynolds) said about the effects of derating, although he happens to be the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Acton Borough Council. He said that the increased current value upon industrial hereditaments would very largely offset the increased rate demand from householders. It must be understood—and my hon. Friend will agree with me—that my constituency is one of the most heavily industrialised in the country and industrial valuation forms a very high percentage of the area's total valuation. We must not fall into the error of supposing that the effects in my constituency will be similar to those throughout the country. The increase in the current value of industrial rating at the end of this period will not in most cases make up for the increased burden which householders have to bear as a result of the higher assessments which are to be placed upon them.
We must not forget that industry is not paying a fair proportion of the rates of the districts concerned. The right hon. Gentleman said that industrial and commercial valuations account for 14 per cent. of the country's total valuations and residential valuations for 86 per cent. The figures are significant. There is not the slightest doubt that in most cases householders pay the major burden of financing local government activities.
If industrial and commercial hereditaments were valued at the current market


value and had to pay 100 per cent. of their assessment, as householders do, the rate burden would be roughly 25 per cent. for industrial and commercial hereditaments and about 75 per cent. for householders.I do not say that that would be fair in every case, but it would be much more equitable than the present basis.
Unless the right hon. Gentleman includes provisions to repeal the 20 per cent. derating of shops and commercial premises, which is automatically to take place with the new valuation, and unless he is prepared to provide that industry shall pay 100 per cent. of its assessment, the balance will continue to be heavily weighted against the average householder.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to industrial derating. Unless one inquires closely into the precise effects of previous legislation, if one takes only a superficial view, one might think that industry is now paying 50 per cent. of its rates to local authorities. That is true on the surface, but the fact remains that although local authorities apparently receive 50 per cent. of the assessment of industrial hereditaments, in fact they receive only about 33 per cent. That is because in previous legislation the right hon. Gentleman withdrew two-thirds of the advantage which would otherwise have gone to local authorities in the increased rating of industry from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent.
I do not want to go over the old ground which we have covered on so many occasions when discussing the principle of industrial rating. The case for calling upon industry to pay 100 per cent. of its assessment is unanswerable and we all know how that can be done in equity to the householder who otherwise has to pay an unduly high proportion of the rate demand.
I do not believe that in three years we shall be any nearer a free market rent for house property than we are today. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will explain precisely how the present factors, which he said prevent a realistic assessment of a fair rent, will have changed in three years. We shall listen carefully to his explanation. I am convinced, as are many others, that those factors will be as present in three years as they are today.
I do not accept that there are valid technical reasons for not having the next valuation list put into operation in 1961, as was intended. It has not been beyond the ingenuity of the valuers to discover the 1939 rent paid by a hypothetical tenant. That was very difficult, but it was done and yet the valuers have not been able to establish what they regard as a fair rent. I still think that that could be done, bearing in mind the broad pattern of rents applying to uncontrolled and furnished lettings, and the rents of local authority accommodation. It must be remembered that when subsidies paid for council houses are taken into account, rents charged by local authorities are fair, because no one makes a profit out of them. If we are looking for fair rentals, which do not allow people to make too much money out of the holding of property, we shall find them in the rents charged by most local authorities, taking into consideration the effect of subsidies.
The right hon. Gentleman has not advanced an adequate argument for postponing the coming into force of the next valuation lists. It would be in the general interest of householders if the valuation lists were brought in, as was intended, in 1961. The basis of those lists would be much fairer than it is likely to be in three years' time. There is no reason for further postponement, because all the relevant factors are available to enable a reasonable and fair rental to be assessed for the purpose of local rating.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: This can hardly be described as an exciting debate. Apart from the ministerial team, there have never been more than two hon. Members on the benches opposite. We are now winding up this debate at six o'clock, although we are dealing with a fundamental social and political problem. The expectations of ordinary people are practically the same, no matter where they live. They want jobs, reasonable wages, a home, education, parks and open spaces for their youngsters, the facilities of public health, and protection by the fire and police services. All the facilities which go to make human life worth while are provided by way of our local government


system, and rent and rates form a large proportion of the budget of the average household.
We are now dealing with the financing by local authorities of the basic human services available to deal with the welfare of our people. Speaking as one who has been brought up in local government, I am disappointed to think that it still leans for its livelihood upon the national Exchequer. The Bill does nothing to correct that situation. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out, it goes some way to perpetuate it.
For years local government finance has been upon a very unsatisfactory basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) made a very courageous speech, bearing in mind the fact that he was suffering from a very severe cold, but in spite of what he said I must point out that everybody is receiving a subsidy at the expense of local rates. The shopkeepers and the occupiers of business premises are being subsidised to the extent of 20 per cent.; industry to 50 per cent., and I would estimate that domestic hereditaments, at 1939 values—speaking not as a valuer—one subsidised at about 50 per cent. The only people who are paying rates at full values are local authorities, in respect of schools and public utility properties.
For far too long local government finance has been at the mercy of successive Governments, and the present Government have once more ducked the issue. Using words a little more forceful than those used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby I would say that the excuses put up by the Government today are not the real reason for the postponement of the Bill. If they were given the task the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue Department could have undertaken it. They have undertaken far more difficult tasks in the past.
The Government's excuse is that there is a lack of evidence about free rent. Will the evidence be any better in 1963 than in 1961? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had something to say about what was likely to happen if the Conservatives were returned at the next General Election. He envisaged their carrying out their intention of removing further

properties from control. It would take until the end of 1960 or the beginning of 1961, at the earliest, before effect could be given to such an aim. In that case they would have an excuse for further postponing the valuation list, because of the upset of the market.
At some time some Government must introduce valuation for rating on current values. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby made the excellent point that the longer this question is delayed the worse becomes the position of local authority finances, and the more difficult it is for the Government to tackle the problem. If action is postponed again in 1963 it will be difficult to implement the new list in one step. Even if it is dealt with in 1963 it will be difficult. The rate burden is not now equitably distributed between one class of ratepayer and another, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton. The Bill does nothing to remedy that situation; in fact, it makes it worse.
The Minister explained, as a reason for his inclusion of Clause 1, that he did not want local authorities to carry out partial revaluations in their areas—

Mr. H. Brooke: A local authority cannot carry out revaluation; it can only seek to initiate a partial revaluation.

Mr. Lindgren: It can do that only by submitting proposals to the valuation court, which determines whether the local authority the local valuation officer is correct. If that is the reason, the Minister is admitting something which, so far, we have not claimed—that there are serious mistakes in the existing valuations and that, in fact, we shall perpetuate mistakes which have already been made.
By this Clause the local authority is being pushed further out of the rating picture. The third party right of objection will be taken away from local authorities which have a duty to see that there is fairness between one ratepayer and another. If it considers that an injustice is being done, a local authority has the right to insist upon equity. The Bill will prevent a local authority from making proposals when it thinks that there is under-valuation. We must emphasise that problems arising from under-valuation have been revealed as applying particularly to shops, offices and


industrial properties, and it is in respect of such property that local authority proposals are generally made. Upon the incidence of rates paid by shopkeepers and commercial and industrial ratepayers depends the amounts of rates paid by domestic ratepayers.
I do not wish to make any specific charges, or to assert that the Inland Revenue Department has deliberately placed a wrong value on certain properties. I do not suggest that there has been connivance between industrialists and shopkeepers and the Department, but mistakes are bound to happen, even in the best-regulated families. In the past, there have been obvious mistakes. There have been cases where local authority finance officers have gone to the Inland Revenue Department to call attention to a mistake, and sometimes the Department officials have said, "We will have a look at it and put in a counter-proposal", and that has been done. Often, the Inland Revenue Department officers have said, "No, we shall not touch it. We shall leave it as it is." Then the local authority has had the right to say, "We think that you are wrong. We will put in a proposal of our own." The matter has gone to the valuation court and an independent decision given.
I am worried about Clause 1 (3). I do not think it right, as was suggested by the Minister, that the intention of the Clause is just to hold the balance during these two years, to prevent a local authority from carrying out a reassessment for two years. The intention for a long time has been to prevent local authorities from exercising this power. I envy the ability of my hon. and learned Friends to refer quickly to references with which to illustrate the points they wish to make. I do not find it so easy to refer to references, but I am certain that it was the City of Liverpool Corporation which wished to revalue a shopping area in the city. The right of the local authority to put in proposals was contested, as was its right to employ a valuer. If I remember correctly, the case went to the courts and the question whether the city was entitled to employ a valuer was argued and a decision given in favour of the local authority.
The Parliamentary Secretary may argue that when the Bill which eventually be-

came the 1949 Act was in draft form, and was discussed by this House, the third party right of local authorities were excluded. That is true, but the right was restored by a suitable Amendment during the Committee stage discussions. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), admitted that local authorities had a duty to ensure that there was fairness as between one ratepayer and another. It was agreed that the local authority should be regarded as an aggrieved person, and that right has been used effectively by local authorities. In my own town a case arose involving a big department store, about which the local authority made proposals. The case is now before the valuation court.
The provisions of the Bill will remove the right of reassessment of industrial property and take away local authorities' rights regarding commercial property. When new proposals are made and are added to the valuation lists they often show a different basis. For example, to quote a fictitious figure, it may be that an industrial property is charged at 8d. a foot. The finance officer will say, "If this property is worth 8d. a foot, and the other properties are valued at about 6d. a foot, we ought to revalue them, because otherwise this new property will pay a greater proportion of the rate than the others." The proposals contained in the Bill will prevent local authorities from exercising a bargaining power when negotiating with the Inland Revenue Department.
As I said in my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), local government finance has suffered from the revaluation basis for many years. We had to wait twenty-one years, from 1935 to 1956, for the valuation. Then, a big task was given to the Inland Revenue Department for the first time and it would have been surprising if all the valuations made by the Department were absolutely correct. I can remember a case in Shropshire, where serious mistakes had to be put right. In carrying out such a big undertaking a large number of mistakes are bound to be made and they have to be put right. I suggest that that can be done only by co-operation between the local authority officers and the Inland Revenue Department, and if the Department is to have


the last word all the time it will not prove much of a partnership.
This postponement will perpetuate the ill effects of any mistakes which have already been made. In calculating the amount to be received by a local authority in the general grant there is a deduction of 9d, which goes to make up the full deficiency grant. If there are discrepancies in valuations between one area and another, the whole basis of the payment of that 9d. levy, and of the amounts received by local authorities, becomes unbalanced and unfair when one authority is compared with another.
I re-emphasise what almost every hon. Member from this side has said, that the Government have failed to face up to a very difficult task. They have shown a lack of courage to which attention has been called by the technical Press, and I am sure that before the Committee stage we shall be subjected—I do not mean wrongly—because of this bad reception in local-government circles, to considerable pressure from local authorities to put certain things right in Clause 1 (3).
The Government have been running away from an opportunity to put local government finance more securely on its feet. I hope that they will have second thoughts and that they will withdraw not only Clause 1 (3), but the whole Bill, and will set about giving local government a financial basis which will be fair to the local authorities and enable them to carry out the work which the Government have asked them to do, and will, at the same time, make for fairness between one ratepayer and another.

6.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said that we had not had a very exciting debate. That is true. I have listened to all the speeches except one, and I cannot help feeling that there has probably been a good deal more agreement between the two sides of the House than a third party listening to the debate might suppose. The hon. Member said hard things about my right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government. We take those in good part, as usual.
The postponement of the 1961 revaluation for a period of two years is important to a great number of people. Probably a majority of people will welcome this postponement. Others like hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken, do not welcome it. No matter how much we may disagree in our line of approach to this problem I think all will agree that there is a certain psychology in the paying of rates which makes it most important that any system of valuation for rating shall be as fair as it can be made and that it shall be felt by the overwhelming majority of ratepayers to be fair.

Mr. Sparks: When the hon. Gentleman says "fair," may I remind him that his right hon. Friend, in moving the Second Reading, spoke of free market value, which is a very different thing from being fair?

Mr. Bevins: Perhaps the hon. Member misheard what I said. I was not talking about rentals, but was saying that any sysem of valuation for rating should be fair and should be seen by the majority of ratepayers to be fair. The paying of Income Tax may be unpleasant, but it does not hurt overmuch. It is a relatively painless form of extraction. But paying rates hurts very many people.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) observed that the Government had brought this postponement upon their own heads by their own policy. I do not accept that for one moment. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was on the point when he said that the history of revaluation was a history of postponement. It is indeed. The postponements that have taken place in this field have not always been the responsibility of the party on this side of the House. There was a postponement as far back as 1952 which, although it was announced by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, had been foreshadowed by right hon. Gentlemen associated with the Labour Government which left office towards the end of 1951.
I was saddened to think, and so I am sure was my right hon. Friend, that the hon. Member for Sowerby, after all these years, had at last deserted the Establishment with which he was so intimately connected. Perhaps it is because of that fact that his contribution to this debate


was not quite so accurate as those he has made in earlier debates on this subject. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and Barry (Mr. Gower) for their helpful and constructive speeches and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) also. His views on charities were wholly in accord with those of my right hon. Friend and of the Government.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering quoted quite a bit from the Economist and seemed to agree with its view that if the Valuation Office could successfully do 1939-value revaluation then it could equally do revaluation on the basis of current values. The fact of the matter is that there is no comparison between rating houses in 1956 on the basis of 1939 rents and, on the other hand, making attempts at this stage to rate all house property and dwellings on the basis of current free market rents. In the first case there was at least a reasonable quantity of evidence upon which the value could be based, but at this moment there is not sufficient evidence to go ahead. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has been handicapped by a cold in the course of the debate. He referred to an assertion by my right hon. Friend that householders bore 86 per cent. of the rate burden and industry and commerce only 14 per cent. My right hon. Friend did not say that. Those percentages referred to numbers of hereditaments rather than to values.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering had a good deal to say about Clause 1 (3), and so had the hon. Member for Wellingborough. The hon. and learned Member complained, as I understood it, that changes might be made in the valuation lists and that rating authorities had no power to intervene. That is not so. Rating authorities still have power to object to any proposal for alterations in the lists and to appear and to be heard, whether or not—

Mr. Lindgren: This is an important point. A valuation court cannot increase a proposal. A local authority can object and the valuation court can only confirm or reduce the proposal of the valuation officer. It is the right of the local authority to make its own proposal as a counter proposal to that of the valuation officer,

which is the important thing. That is the only way it can put the valuation right.

Mr. Bevins: Would the hon. Gentleman let me finish what I was saying? I was saying that rating authorities will still have power to object to alterations in the list, to appear and to be heard, whether or not they have objected, at the hearing of appeals. Unless it has contracted out the local authority must also be a party to any agreement between valuation officers and ratepayers for settling proposals without recourse to the valuation courts. It is true that local authorities cannot initiate proposals, but what I think the hon. Gentleman was referring to in his speech was the power of local authorities, in conjunction with other agencies, to correct obvious mistakes.
The provision in the Bill is limited to the period of current valuation lists, but if the obvious mistake is already in the list then the local authority has, after all, had three years since April, 1956, to take action about it. If the obvious mistake is just about to be made by way of a valuation officer's proposal, or that of a ratepayer for that matter, the rating authority can object and take part in the whole proceedings.

Mr. Lindgren: This is fundamental, particularly to developing areas. There is no secret: that in Hertfordshire we have been very much concerned at the undervaluation of industrial properties. There was no enthusiastic excitement by the valuation office to go forward with revaluations. Only when the local authorities, in conjunction with the county, in argument with the Inland Revenue, had behind them the threat of putting in proposals themselves, was the revaluation taken up. We cannot do that any more if Clause 1 (3) is carried. Sheffield County Council recently had a revaluation of a part of its area. Obviously, it was correct because the valuation court approved it, but that will be prohibited in future.

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate the point the hon. Member has made, but the fact is that a period of nearly three years has elapsed in which something could have been done about those cases.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering seemed to give the impression to the House that we should need much


more decontrol of houses if it were to be possible in 1963 to carry out a revaluation on the basis of market values.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman did not quite understand me. I said the party opposite was pledged to full decontrol. If it got the chance after the next General Election I would expect it to do it. That would make an even bigger mess of the house market than decontrol so far has made.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. and learned Member must forgive me if I appear stupid, but parts of his speech were a little tortuous. Perhaps I may say this in association with what was said by the hon. Member for Acton, who took the view that the position of the valuers and the ability of the valuers to get on with the job for a 1963 list would not be very different at that time from the circumstances in which they are working today. This is an important point, which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). I should like it to be clear to the House that the advice which my right hon. Friend has had from the Valuation Office is that sufficient rental evidence should be available to carry out a revaluation to take effect in 1963. That is based on the existing measure of decontrol—that is to say, without any further decontrol the Valuation Office believes that in 1963 it ought to be able to carry out revaluation.
I appreciate that some hon. Members may feel that the Valuation Office requires to have evidence of market values for, as it were, a very large slice of house property before it would be able to do that. I am advised that is not the case, but that what matters is that there should be a sufficient proportion of houses let at free market rents to give the Valuation Office a yardstick for valuing all house property. As I say, we are advised that, even with the present limited measure of decontrol, a sufficient proportion of houses let on free market rentals should enable the Valuation Office to do the job.

Mr. Sparks: Will the valuers at the same time take into consideration the basis of local authority rents throughout the country, of course adding to them any subsidies which are being paid? That would mean realistic rents which would be much fairer than the scarcity value rents.

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that is practicable. I do not think that one could expect the Valuation Office to take into account the rents of subsidised houses.

Mr. Sparks: I meant including the subsidy. I did not say the net rent exclusive of subsidy, but the rental which goes to the local authority including subsidies.

Mr. Bevins: I understand what the hon. Member is saying. The trouble is that the subsidy does not attach to the individual house. That is where the difficulty lies.

Mr. Sparks: It could be worked out.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member for Sowerby said in effect that my right hon. Friend had gone to the Valuation Office and implored it to think of reasons for postponing revaluation. I thought that rather naughty of the hon. Member. It happens to be entirely untrue. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said the Valuation Office could do the revaluation in 1961 if it were told to. That, again, is not true.
I should like to say a word or two in emphasis of what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend because the feasibility of this operation is the heart of the matter. As my right hon. Friend said, houses account for about four-fifths of all rateable properties in England and Wales. In order to reassess on current values, the Valuation Office would be faced with the difficult task of deciding the current rents at which those houses might be expected to let from year to year.
That is not a matter of the whims or fancies of the Valuation Office. It is not even a matter of intelligent guesswork or intuition. It has to be founded on actual market conditions and the rents which willing tenants are prepared to pay to willing landlords. Therefore, we say that the Valuation Office must have reliable evidence of market rents. It must have that information, not only to produce a valuation which is fair but also to enable the valuation courts and the Lands Tribunal to determine appeals by ratepayers and others. If the courts and the Tribunal could say that the evidence available for the Valuation Office was inadequate, how could they possibly determine values? How could we avoid


a really serious lack of public confidence in the lists?
If many of the earlier appeals that went to the courts or the Tribunal led to a significant reduction in assessment, I do not see how we could expect to avoid a flood of appeals which might bring the whole system into disrepute. These are really serious questions. The matter before the House is whether we have sufficient evidence of current free market rents at this time. We certainly have not got it from the millions of houses which are owner-occupied, from houses which are let at subsidised rents or from controlled houses which, again, provide very little evidence of free market rents. So we come to decontrolled dwellings.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that one of the seasons why there was such a paucity of evidence of free market rents was the confusion created by the Rent Act. That was the line taken in this matter by the Daily Herald. It said on 12th February:
the Rent Act has created so much confusion that the Inland Revenue has been unable to collect enough evidence to lay down a standard valuation in any area.
With the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Member, and rather less to the Daily Herald, that view is entirely wrong. It is the Daily Herald which is creating the confusion. The obvious effect of the Rent Act will be to help in determining free market rentals. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that had there been no Rent Act there would have been little if any possibility, either now or in the future, of assessing houses on the basis of free market rentals.
It is true, as my right hon. Friend explained earlier, that in the decontrolled sector the market has not yet had time to settle. Many of these houses are let on three-year leases which will fall in by 1961, and when the new leases are negotiated the new level of rents may well give us a pretty good pointer to market levels, at any rate for this type of property.
The important point is that this information about new rents negotiated under these leases would not be available to the Valuation Office in time for the preparation of the 1961 list, and the danger is that a comparatively small variation in the level of those rents between the time the rental evidence was

collected and the date when the new list came into existence could play havoc with the new list.

Mr. Houghton: In view of this, most of which could have been foreseen and none of which is surprising, why were false hopes held out and the bogus date of 1961 put into the earlier legislation?

Mr. Bevins: It has always been the hope of my right hon. Friend and the the Government that it might be possible to go ahead with the revaluation for 1961, but it has become increasingly clear and is now, in the view of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, perfectly well established that this operation is not practicable at the present time.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member does not like the Daily Herald. He has not mentioned the Economist. May I try him with a question from The Times? It reads:
But if the decontrolled tenanted houses are too few to establish what real rent levels would now be if the; whole market were now free, why should it be supposed that they will be numerous enough shortly after the next election?
That is out of the leading article called "An uninviting change".

Mr. Bevins: I dealt with that point a few minutes ago when I said that the numbers of houses in the decontrolled sector which are let on lease may be the same in two or three years' time as now, but the vital point is that the market has not yet had time to settle and that in two or three years' time there is every reason to suppose that the evidence of market rentals which we can derive from that class of property will have some value. As my right hon. Friend said, the estimate of the Valuation Office—and this is not our estimate—is that good rental evidence is probably not available for more than about 2 per cent. of the houses in England and Wales, and that is nothing like good enough to put firm legs under a valuation list.
A great deal has been said this afternoon, in perhaps a rather nebulous fashion, not only about the feasibility or otherwise of the revaluation at current values, but also about the possibility of taking two bites at the cherry. The hon. Member for Sowerby and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, made some comments on that proposition. The


hon. and learned Member for Kettering, to whom I listened with rapt attention, seemed to me to walk to the edge of an abyss and to stop just in the nick of time. I was not quite clear what the abyss was, although I had my suspicions.
One point of view which I think has found expression in the debate is, why not make a clean job of valuation for the first time for many years and have revaluation of all properties, domestic, commercial and industrial, at current market values or the nearest approach to it that we can get? I have tried to explain why, from a practical point of view, that operation is unworkable at the moment, but I understand that a number of hon. Members opposite are reluctant to accept that statement. They appear to think that the Government are afraid of alienating the tenants of houses whose assessments would no doubt rise. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering used a rather inelegant phrase and said that our action "stinks of political cowardice."
This is based on the fallacy that because rateable values would rise, the householder's share of the rate burden would rise correspondingly. What matters in this respect, however, is not the extent to which assessments of this class of property and that class of property rise or fall. What matters is the proportion which the new values of houses bears to the new values of other properties. The values of other properties have certainly increased since 1956, as the hon. Member for Acton said. In addition, the 20 per cent. abatement would disappear on revaluation on that basis. What is more, the statutory deductions, related as they are to repair costs, would no doubt have to be increased. That would be only right.
These are some of the factors which affect the share of the rate burden borne by the householder, by industry and by other interests. With the greatest respect, nobody can be dogmatic about how a process of that sort would work out. Indeed, in our debate today the hon. Member for Acton expressed one view which was not in accord with the view expressed by one of his hon. Friends.
May I turn to the suggestion of improvising not a system of market values but an artificial system, as it were, which was

a move in the right direction? The Government clearly could have applied a multiple of two or some such figure to existing house assessments. We examined that proposal and a number of variants upon it. Having done so, we decided that those ideas were not acceptable. To begin with, when we jobbed backwards a few years ago to 1939 rental values, that was a crude enough basis about seventeen years after the event, and it produced a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country and led to many thousands of appeals. Clearly, as time passes, that basis of pre-war values will become still more imperfect.
The trouble with multipliers, whether the multiplier is 1½ 2 or 2½ is that they always multiply the weaknesses which exist. Apart from the fact that, working under a system of this sort, we should have to make special provision for the old houses and the large houses which would often have current rental increases much less than the average increase, I think we should also find that a multiple basis would work very unevenly throughout the country. In those areas where commercial and industrial values have increased very little—that is to say, in the main in those areas where trade is not flourishing and where at the moment there is some unemployment—the householder would get, relatively speaking, a raw deal in the proportion of rates which he would be called upon to pay.
It was very largely for these reasons that my right hon. Friend and the Government took the view that the right course at this stage was to postpone revaluation until 1963. I beg the House to believe me when I say that this decision was taken upon severely practical grounds and upon advice tendered to my right hon. Friend by the Valuation Office. Considerations of politics never entered into the matter at all. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering is a little preoccupied with the next Election, but we on this side of the House are not, and we have no reason to be.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to postpone the coming into force of new valuation lists under Part HI of the Local Government Act, 1948, and to restrict proposals for altering the current lists, and to postpone the date as from which relief under section eight of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, can be terminated or reduced, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL BANK AND MONETARY FUND [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of this Session to enable effect to be given to proposed increases in the quotas of the International Monetary Fund and in the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums required for the purpose of paying, in connection with the proposed increases, any subscriptions to the International Monetary Fund and any amounts payable to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
(b)the borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing any sums to be so paid or for replacing any sums so paid.

Resolution agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL BANK AND MONETARY FUND BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(FINANCING OF UNITED KING DOM SUBSCRIPTIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when introducing the Bill, this is a machinery Bill. It seems to us on this side of the Committee that very little discussion would be in order on major questions and that all that could be said has already been said at an earlier stage by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley)

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Similar considerations apply to Third Reading, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOSPITALS, NORTH-EAST COAST (WAITING LISTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

6.54 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: It is an unexpected pleasure to have the opportunity, at a fairly early hour, of discussing the very important matter of hospital waiting lists. I hope that this will mean that there will be an opportunity for other hon. Members who are concerned in this matter to take part in the discussion.
I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the problem of hospital waiting lists in the North-East of England, that is, the area covered by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board. There may be hon. Members from other parts of the country who wish to raise similar matters, because the problem with which I am concerned especially in the North-East, applies with almost equal force in other parts of the country. If I refer specifically to Newcastle and the immediately contiguous areas, it is because I am aware of the problem there and am particularly anxious about it, as indeed, is the general public in that region.
There are, in effect, two separate problems. There is, first, the problem of the waiting list for consultant appointment before the patient may get on to a hospital waiting list at all. That waiting period may be very considerable. Secondly, there is the problem of the waiting list for hospital bed accommodation.
The problem of the waiting time for consultant appointments was very strongly raised by the Northumberland Health Executive Council some time ago, and it gave rise to a good deal of Press discussion in the North-East. It was mentioned at a meeting of that Executive Council that there were complaints from general practitioners in the area. The Executive Council wrote to the hospital concerned confirming these complaints and pointing out that it was argued that a waiting period of from five to six weeks was involved before a patient could be seen by a consultant and an opinion given to the

general practitioner. This was not raised by one doctor, but by many.
That complaint sent to a major hospital in the North-East gave rise to very considerable discussion. It was pointed out by the hospital concerned that the waiting periods vary very much from one field of treatment to another, but that in some fields the waiting period is broadly of that order.
I have spent some time checking up, both in the teaching hospitals and in the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board hospitals. There is a very wide range of waiting periods for consultation appointments. Some are as long as five and six weeks and some may be even longer. I have had many complaints from patients, who argue that this is tending to mean that the only way to get a bed in hospital reasonably quickly is by securing a private consultation first and paying for the consultation, so that at least the first hurdle is cleared in that way.
I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary of the serious view that many of us take of the fact that it is publicly felt in the North-East that the only reliable way, or one of the most reliable ways, to secure an early consultation is by paying for it. I am not saying that that is necessarily correct. I know that there are provisions at most hospitals—certainly, I know that there are at several—by which the doctor is recommended to adopt certain procedures. If he is satisfied that an early consultation is required for his patient, there are certain procedures to make sure that a patient does not have to wait. In the general run of cases, I am satisfied that any urgent case is seen and admitted to hospital reasonably quickly. We are rightly proud of the treatment provided for urgent cases.
Problems, however, arise in the definition of an urgent case. A general practitioner may not recognise how serious the case is, and it is not then put forward as being urgent. Again, a general practitioner may say that, in his view, the condition is not sufficiently urgent to warrant his recommending it for immediate consultation. Or he may say to a patient, "If you want to satisfy yourself about this, and avoid the waiting list, you had better let me arrange a private consultation." I hear so much about this now that I get the impression that this method of private consultation is on the increase, and is


being encouraged by the fact that a patient may be on the waiting list for consultation for five or six weeks, or even longer.
Before I speak about hospital beds, I want the hon. Gentleman to direct his attention to reducing the consultation waiting period. If we can make wider provision for consultant and specialist services in such an areas as North-East England, it may lead to a considerable reduction in the waiting period and, as a consequence, some reduction in the number of people who try the short cut of a private consultation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is highly undesirable that such a method should be used as a short cut to earlier consultation—so by-passing others in the queue!
Some consultants may not be altogether pleased about a reduction in the list It would be human enough for them to feel that a certain length of waiting list for consultation is not a bad thing, as it keeps the road open for a certain amount of private work. I hope that that attitude is not often adopted. I am quite sure that many of our more senior consultants would not take that view, but there may be some such element in the business. I therefore particularly urge that, because of the undoubted waiting lists there are for consultation, a real effort be made to try to improve the staffing position in the North-East.
I want now to refer to the comments made on staffing by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board in its annual report for the year ended 31st March, 957. The Board says that specialist recruitment was very rapid in the early years after the introduction of the National Health Service. When the Health Service started on 5th July, 1948, the region employed only 164 specialists, but by 31st March, 1951, that figure had increased to 292—almost doubling the number of specialists employed. The numbers continued to rise until, on 31st March, 1953, 370 specialists were employed.
After that, the speed of advance slackened considerably. There were only two new appointments in 1954–55, in the following year there were 10, and in the year after that there were nine. This, of course, was when the Ministry itself was

restricting, by a very strict examination of any proposals put to it, the number of new appointments. It was then no longer possible for appointments to be made without the direct approval of the Ministry.
That had the effect of very seriously curtailing growth, in spite of the fact that the needs were very great and that in relation to its population, the region had, and has, a low number of beds— and, to some extent because of that, an even greater need for specialist attention than exists, perhaps, in other regions. This region has suffered from the economic blizzards of the past. It has not yet completely emerged from them. Although the growth of specialist appointments was dramatic and very valuable in the early years, that growth has been so much slowed down as to lose a lot of its value.
For that reason, I most seriously ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the special claim of this region's specialist appointments, and to make sure that where a good case can be made out for new appointments in order to bring down the waiting list—and I believe that a good case can be made out in very many of these cases—no hesitation will be shown in approving the proposals. I hope that we may get that definite undertaking this evening.
From the waiting period for specialist consultations, I turn to the waiting period for hospital beds. Again, I want to emphasise that this waiting period follows the period during which the patient has awaited a consultation. That period may be as long as five or six weeks, although, of course, I do not suggest that five or six weeks is an average figure. In many cases, the patient waits for a very much shorter time, but it is quite possible that those on the hospital waiting list for beds have already had to wait a considerable time before even reaching that list at all.
The rather anxious fact that we face in the North-East—and I think that it is common in other parts of the country, also—is that the total waiting list at the latest date I have available shows an increase over the year before, which, in turn, showed some increase on the previous year. In other words, the healthy situation that existed for some years of reductions in the waiting list has been reversed. Over the last two years, at any


rate, we have had a throw-back—a moderate but real increase in the numbers on the list for hospital admission.
To give the full position, on 31st December, 1949, there were some 24,000 patients on the waiting list for hospital beds. That figure rose the next year to nearly 28,000. That was a period when new services were being opened up and, of course, it is to be expected that large numbers of new cases would come forward. The Minister, in answer to a Question that I asked not long ago, twitted me with the fact that in the early years of the National Health Service there were increases in the waiting list. Therefore, he asked, why should I complain that there had been much more moderate increase in the last year or two. The reason is the very obvious one, that when we were opening up the National Health Service and making available a new provision which had not been available in the past it was not surprising that large numbers came forward to take advantage of this new service.
As I say, in the Newcastle region—and I am quoting the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board—there was an increase in the first year up to 1950, but in 1951 the figures declined slightly and in 1952 they remained fairly stable; actually they went up a little, and in 1953 they remained almost identical. In 1954 and 1955 there were reductions, and then after 1955 there were two years of increase. I suggest that those two years of increase are related in part to the Government's own action in refusing permission for the effective expansion of the specialist services in the area. I would not say that the difficulty in making the expansion, which was undoubtedly still needed in the area, was necessarily the sole cause, but it was certainly a contributory cause.
I am well aware that one can be easily led to false conclusions by quoting just the crude figures for hospital waiting lists. But if one examines some of these figures one finds that in areas where there are no services of a particular character available there are no waiting lists, for the simple reason that there is no point in people being on the waiting list. Of course, there are certain special problems which inevitably create waiting lists. However advanced our services might be, there would be bound to be waiting lists for plastic surgery, for example, because

of the nature of the problem. A series of operations is performed and there must be a certain period between one operation and another. There are those factors which we fully understand and, therefore, one does not want to rest the whole of one's case upon broad figures.
But when one examines the problem of waiting lists for hospital beds in the Newcastle region one sees that the problem seems to be concentrated in the City of Newcastle and the immediate surrounding area, and on Tees-side. This is perhaps natural on Tees-side, where there is an increasing population, and it may be that the services are not yet adequate to provide for the growing population. However, it is noticeable that in Newcastle itself there has been a serious increase in the numbers on the hospital waiting lists, rising from 4,300 in 1953 to 4,700. It becomes all the more serious if one quotes the 1951 figure of about 3,500. It will be seen, therefore, that there has been a concentration of the problem in Newcastle itself.
In addition, if one considers just where the heaviest lists are, and where the increase has been most noticeable, we meet certain problems. I am not saying that this is necessarily true of other parts of the country, but in the Newcastle region as a whole there is no doubt that general surgery is proving one of the most difficult and urgent problems. There we have had a very considerable increase in the lists, and it is one which everybody recognises must be tackled as quickly as possible. There are also alarming increases in gynaecology cases, although I would add that the situation is recognised, and efforts, which I hope will prove successful, are being made to bring into use fresh hospital beds which will make a considerable inroad into the problem.
There are other difficulties. I have already mentioned plastic surgery. Even after allowing for the problems which are inevitably connected with plastic surgery, there is a serious increase in the waiting list. I would mention in this connection that we have built up a service in the area; we have some extremely able specialists whose names are well known and who, no doubt, attract a great deal of attention in connection with important industrial cases, for this is not just a question of beautification; there are urgent


industrial cases resulting from accidents, and so on. Perhaps just as serious is the increase in the waiting list for orthopaedic treatment.
These are matters which affect many working people and it is of considerable concern that we have increases in this type of case. Quite clearly, it is bound to affect the work that people are able to do while waiting for the treatment that they need. It does not necessarily mean that they are off work altogether while waiting for a hospital bed, but in all probability they are having to take less important and less skilled work. In addition, there is always the problem of family welfare. Some of the most difficult welfare problems emerge where housewives are concerned. Difficulties arise in the family when the mother is unable to carry on, or tries desperately to carry on but is not able to do so because she needs attention.
It may be that some of the people on the waiting lists are not regarded, and perhaps properly so, as requiring such urgent attention as others who are brought in more quickly. But what I am trying to emphasise is that, urgent or not, from a strictly medical point of view there is a very real economic and welfare problem and it should be our object to treat these people as quickly as possible. Everyone with whom I have discussed this problem agrees that although many of these cases may not be urgent in the earlier stages, they may well become urgent if allowed to remain on the lists for too long.
Perhaps one of the most anxious problems indicated by all the figures which I have by me is that the greatest increase in the region appears to be in that long period of waiting time over twelve months. That is the one which is most emphasised, and which has shown the greatest growth since 1953 in the Newcastle area, and that is another reason why we should be particularly anxious about it.
I do not want to paint an unfair picture of the problem. I have said that I have picked out the cases which appear to us to be most urgent. It is also fair to say that there has been a quite dramatic drop in the waiting lists for ear, nose and throat cases in the region. A great deal of extra work has been done there to

reduce the lists, and the same thing is true of the ophthalmic side, especially amongst children, which is very encouraging, especially the way in which admissions have been improved and we have overcome the difficulties there.
I have to say, however, that in spite of these improvements—and I pay tribute to those who have helped to achieve them —they are overborne by the size of the increases in the other fields which I have mentioned, so that there is a considerable net increase in the waiting lists, even after taking account of these quite valuable reductions in the waiting lists in other specialties in other directions.
What is to be done? What action can be taken? I have already suggested one line of action which I believe is open to the Minister, after consultation with the proper hospital authorities, namely, a review of the establishments, to see what is the most urgent need by way of additional appointments. Of course, one understands that appointments of specialists by themselves may not solve the problem. In some cases, but not necessarily in all others, the need, as in this area, is for extra hospital beds. I am not one of those who say that additional hospital beds are everywhere required. By no means. The real need is to get a more modern use of, and more useful, beds, but not necessarily, over the whole of the field, to increase their overall number.
In the North of England, we are still relatively very short of beds in comparison with the size of our population. We are much worse off than most parts of the rest of the country. For that reason there is, for us at any rate, still a real need for additional beds. For example, the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board's report states that, in our region, we have 95 beds per 1,000 of the population, as against a national average of 11·6, and we note that the proportion is much higher in the South. There is no good reason why the proportion should be so much greater in the South. It is reasonable to suggest that there still needs to be a review of the availability of beds in the northern parts of the country.
I suggest that if we are to tackle this problem, we need both a review of the staffing situation and of specialist appointments, and we need, in certain fields, though not necessarily in all, a


special examination of the beds available. I hope that both of these will receive the special attention of the Minister because of the urgency, in my view, of the problem that arises at present.
The figures I have quoted so far have not included the almost special and distinct problem of the psychiatric cases. Indeed, we have waiting lists here which mean very little, because it is well known that there is great difficulty in getting cases admitted to hospital, because of the shortage of accommodaiton, so that the waiting lists are, or may be, quite unreal. The same thing, in my view, is true about geriatric cases and about old people. It is true that any list that one has prepared of numbers of old people waiting would also be quite unreal. I do not want to leave out these two problems, especially that of the old people.
Some parts of the country have managed to secure more beds for treatment, have managed to build up on the basis of those beds active treatment, and have brought into use the concept of the day units and the like, but in the majority of cases that is not so. It is certainly not so in Newcastle, where we still suffer from a real shortage of hospital accommodation for old people, as well as other forms of accommodation for them. The tragedy is that all too often old persons can only be found a bed, particularly in the winter months, too late to be able to do very much of value for them.
This is a very distressing fact. It means that too many of the beds are blocked by long-staying cases, and this suggests that, for us in Newcastle, though it is not necessarily true everywhere, there is an urgent need for more bed accommodation, to enable some active treatment to be provided for the hospitals to get to work on the cases that come before them before they become so chronic as to be— I will not say incapable of treatment— but very much more difficult to treat.
Therefore, I believe that we have a very special claim on the attention of the Ministry. What is wanted is a real sign of vigour on the part of the Minister to show how determined and eager he is to see this problem solved, to see that, in Newcastle as well as elsewhere, there is an adequate number of beds and that the

form of treatment shown to be so successful in a number of cases, in Newcastle with active treatment and in Oxford with day units, should be introduced.
My criticism of the Ministry is that for too long it has been unwilling to exert the kind of leadership and pressure that I believe is required. It is the job of the Minister to keep on as good terms as possible with the Treasury. That is perhaps an understandable desire, though difficult to reconcile with a developing service, but we do not feel that there is in the Ministry of Health any kind of sense of urgency. We feel that the Minister should see that people waiting for consultation and the long waiting lists of people wanting hospital beds means an economic loss to the country, which should be a matter of very real concern both to the Minister and to the members of the Cabinet as well.
I therefore appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to say something more than that the Ministry is prepared to look into this problem, because I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary himself will do so. I have had some correspondence with the Minister about the matter, and I am sure that, in the effluxion of time, there will be a reply. But I want much more than that. I want the Minister to say that he agrees that this is a supremely urgent problem and that he will not be satisfied until a very considerable reduction is made in the waiting lists.
I want the Minister to say that he recognises the importance of this problem and that he recognises the welfare and human aspect of it as well. I want him to say that he fully realises—I am sure the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) will emphasise this if she has the opportunity—that, in the North-East of England, our ratio of beds is much lower than it is in other parts of the country and that, although there have been considerable advances in specialist appointments, about which we can be rightly proud, the advance has come almost to a full stop during the last few years. These things must be put right if we are to tackle the problem effectively.

7.31 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I apologise to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)


who has raised this very important matter on the Adjournment tonight. I congratulate him on his luck in being able to speak so wonderfuly early in the evening, and I am very sorry that I did not hear the earlier part of his speech. Although he and I differ basically in our political philosophy, we, together with all Members for the North-East Coast, keep a very close eye on the fortunes of that part of our country in whatever direction they may run.
For very many years, we have suffered in many ways as a result of prolonged and hard unemployment in the 'thirties, and we have much leeway to make up. We are always very glad of an opportunity to remind Ministers, when they are dealing with Government policy and looking at national affairs, as they must, in their wider aspect, that the North-East Coast has a great deal of leeway to make up before it can be said to be in a position to share equally in the general ups and downs of the work of any Government Department. Tonight, of course, I speak particularly of matters which are the particular concern of the Ministry of Health.
It is a wonderful thing when, on an occasion like this, we can put the arguments for the North-East Coast. I am delighted to have the opportunity of supporting the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East in asking my hon. Friend to convey to his right hon. Friend that there has been, and rightly so, a great deal of criticism about the long waiting lists at hospitals in the North-East. It is usually very difficult—at least, I always find it so—to establish a channel of communication to the Minister to convey representations which start, so to speak, from the organisation which has been built up and which has the basic knowledge. Tonight, if I understand matters aright, we have the advantage that the Northumberland Executive Committee has drawn to the attention of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board the difficulties of our situation. I have not the slightest doubt that the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board, which has done a really magnificent job in always trying to emphasise the needs of the North-East Coast to the Ministry, will have been in touch, through the proper channels, with my right hon. Friend. We want to know now what action is to be taken.
Last Thursday, I think it was, I put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minis-

ter a Question on a very important subject. I asked him always to bear in mind when considering the national interest the need for everyone to do everything he possibly can to cut costs, to make what we have to offer the best, which it generally is, and the most efficient, at the best price in the markets of the world There is, however, no doubt that, if people have to wait a very long time either when they go to make appointments at hospitals or when they wait for hospital beds, the delay irritates them very much indeed, especially when they feel that, if there were more beds available and there was a generally accelerated organisation, we should be able to move ahead much faster than we are at the moment in producing what the country needs in the national interest.
It is a pity that when speeches are sometimes made on a certain subject Ministers do not sit in so that they may immediately point out that as regards their Departments they are prevented from giving 100 per cent. service through lack of money for capital expenditure, for increased facilities, or whatever it may be. This, however, very rarely happens in Parliamentary life. One has to make one's representations to one Minister or another, and very seldom is one able to mate the two. I particularly wanted to say that as the general policy and aim of the Government and, I think, of every Member of the House of Commons is to increase our productive capacity and competitive efficiency in the world, it is most unfortunate that we do not at the same time ensure that no man or woman has to delay returning to ordinary life after illness because we have not the hospital beds available or the facilities for reducing waiting time when people have to visit out-patient departments. This is a very important aspect of the case, and I want to know what is to be done about it.
Everyone takes great pride in the general improvement in the health of the nation. I sometimes feel that it is a great pity that the Ministers concerned in the Ministry of Health, when they find the Treasury or any other Minister arguing against them because they want a little more money, do not try to put in the balance the value in national efficiency of the improved health of the nation. We are always talking about the


amount of money which is spent on the National Health Service. We are always talking about it going up by leaps and bounds every year. I suppose it would be difficult for a Minister to do so in the House—I should like to know what goes on sometimes in the Cabinet—but why is it that the Minister himself cannot announce that in very many ways the money which is spent on the National Health Service has proved a great boon to the whole nation?
One has only to go to the schools today and look at the magnificent state of health of most of the children, the gloss on their hair, the brightness of their eyes and the sturdiness of their limbs and bodies. It is an absolutely magnificent result for science, medicine, the National Health Service and all that this country has done to secure the healthiest possible nation.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I agree with every word uttered by the hon. Lady, but will she tell me whether she voted with her colleagues against the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill?

Dame Irene Ward: I had no idea that the right hon. Lady loved me so much that she did not realise that I was not a Member of the House at that time. She and I worked together very closely during the war, and I am always delighted to have had the co-operaton that we have had, but it cuts me to the quick to find that she did not realise that I was not a Member of the House when the National Health Service finally came into operation. However, I did my share as a member of the Tory Reform Committee before the 1945 General Election in laying the foundations for the introduction of the National Health Service.

Dr. Summerskill: Might I put an amended question to the hon. Lady? If she had been a Member of the House at that time, would she have voted with her Conservative colleagues against the Second Reading of the Bill?

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Lady well knows that there was an Amendment moved by the Conservative Party. The conflict between the Socialist Government and the Conservative Opposition was not on the introduction of the

National Health Service. I do not think it serves any good purpose when for political reasons the Socialist Party trots out this old lie until it nearly drives one mad. If the facts and the debate are studied properly it will be seen—I remember this though I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I have had to answer questions in my part of the world —that the Amendment moved to the Second Reading of the Bill gave a welcome on behalf of the Conservative Opposition to the introduction of the National Health Service.

Dr. Summerskill: As the hon. Lady has mentioned the word "lie", which is not a Parliamentary term, I am sure, and has explained away the vote on Second Reading, can she tell us why the Conservative Party voted against the Third Reading of the Bill?

Dame Irene Ward: If I remember correctly, it was because the Bill did not embody what the Conservative Opposition thought was important to it. I am not in the medical profession and so the right hon. Lady has an advantage over me, but if I remember rightly, while the Conservative Government were in power one or two alterations had to be made to the Bill or to the administrative framework of the Service. What the Conservative Opposition said at that time proved to be correct.

Mr. Speaker: We are getting rather far from matters for which present Ministers are responsible.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I will put my remarks in order. However, perhaps you will allow me just to say to the right hon. Lady, who raised the matter, that one of the reasons why we have such long waiting lists on the North-East Coast is that we were never given sufficient money to catch up on the deficiencies in the Service. I would not have mentioned this, because I am only too glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has brought up the whole question, but as the right hon. Lady was trying to catch me and the Conservative Party out I would like to put on record that I think it was a great pity that when we were so short of hospital beds in relation to our population on the North-East Coast and when the Socialist Minister of Health and his


Parliamentary Secretary were planning a hospital service which has been of such benefit to the whole community—with the co-operation of the Conservative Party—they did not think a little more about the needs of the North-East Coast. When the capital expenditure was allocated, they left the North-East Coast and the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board very much behind in the number of beds and in many other aspects of the medical service compared with the rest of the country. I should like that question to be answered seriously at some time.
The right hon. Lady, who at that time represented Fulham, had the great benefit of the King Edward Hospital Fund which helps enormously when things are needed in this part of the world, but the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board is unable to get anything from it. That is all the more reason why tonight we must argue our case so that we can get a little more money to deal with the deficiencies which undoubtedly exist on the North-East Coast. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who was not concerned with the battles which went on with the Socialist Government, to do a little better for the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board than the Socialist Government did.
On the North-East Coast we are expanding in all sorts of industrial developments. We are a very inventive part of the world and have going forward tremendous developments which will enormously help the general economy of the country. It is important that our people should have the best possible facilities for keeping themselves fit and healthy and in every way ready to meet the challenge of life. It is tremendously important that we should not have long waiting lists.
The Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has done extremely well. It has been fighting a rearguard action in respect of our deficiencies. We have had a lot of help from the Minister of Health. A lot of additional money has been given to our regional hospital board, and I hope the right hon. Lady will bear that in mind. It has come from the Conservative Minister of Health. We are making progress, but I still think that we have a very long way to go. When anything as important to us as the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has had repre-

sentations made to it through the Northumberland Executive Council, it is up to those of us who represent the North-East Coast to impress on my hon. Friend that we feel very strongly that we have a genuine grievance. Our people are very hard workers, and we want to make sure that they are fit to meet all the problems of everyday life. Will my hon. Friend say what the Government intend to do about our situation?
I will not take the matter any further, although I have always understood that on an Adjournment debate one could raise almost any subject. However, I will not treat my hon. Friend to a lengthy speech on what we want on the North-East Coast. We want a great deal. In the meantime, we should be glad to know what help we can expect in reducing these long waiting lists and in meeting the criticism which the Northumberland Executive very rightly put to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board and which the Board put to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May I make a point of correction? In fact, the Northumberland Health Executive sent its note only to the board of governors of the teaching hospital, although, of course, the general argument applies to the teaching hospital and to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank the hon. Member.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: It is always a pleasure for hon. Members from the North-East to listen to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). At times she discusses productivity, and I have often wondered whether she has yet concluded what is meant by increased production and productivity. Tonight she has talked about productivity and what the Government have done for the National Health Service, of which we are so justly proud.
What the hon. Lady has not told us is why there have been so many changes in the Government and why since the party opposite came into power we have had five Ministers of Health. One concludes that some of the Ministers have not been as efficient in their control of the National Health Service as were our Ministers after the Labour Party took office in


1945. Incidentally, local authorities who were largely responsible for the development of health services before 1945 did a very good job.
We of the North-East feel that we are not getting a fair crack of the whip. We believe that the Minister does not allocate sufficient money to meet our needs. We criticise the regional hospital board in the belief that the board is not doing all that it might, but our criticism is mainly directed against the Government, and we shall continue to agitate for an increase in financial support from the Government, hoping that the Minister will bring the necessary pressure to bear on his colleagues.
The Minister has told me that two hospitals are to be built in my constituency, one at Billingham and the other at Newton Aycliffe, the new town. However, I have not been given any likely date of commencement. Can the Parliamentary Secretary, in the context of this debate on waiting lists, tell us when work on either of those hospitals will be begun? At one time, a scheme was on the stocks for a new hospital in County Durham, but nothing has come of that.
People in the North-East will be gratified to know that the House is now united in its demand for adequate facilities for the people of the North-East. As the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth indicated, the National Health Service has done a magnificent job since it was brought into being and hon. Members opposite have greatly changed their attitude since the days when they were in Opposition.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will report to his right hon. Friend on the facts presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and on the attitude of other hon. Members from the North-East, for we are not satisfied with the progress being made in hospital extensions, new hospitals, and other forms of hospital accommodation. If the service is to progress as we all hope, the Minister must reconsider his attitude to financial provision for the North-East. He may be the fifth Minister of his party to have responsibility for this important service, but I hope that before he leaves office and hands over responsibility to us, he will have done something for the North-East.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I must apologise to the House for not being able to be present when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) opened the debate. I must also apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for having arrived in the Chamber only while she was speaking, thus being unable to follow the purport of her speech.
I rise to say how much we owe to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East for having raised this very important topic. It is an issue which has been near and dear to our hearts for a long time. Indeed, it has now become a grievous matter. When there are 5,000 people who have been waiting for hospital beds for more than twelve months, there is obviously something wrong with a system that allows this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) that more money should be given to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board so that it can conquer the problem of these devilishly long waiting lists.
Many men would undoubtedly be available for employment if they could have the chance of being admitted to hospital to have the necessary treatment. I do not know how serious many of the cases are, nor whether their condition deteriorates as time goes on, but I am certain that men who are left to wait for twelve months for a hospital bed must think that there is not anyone who cares and therefore must feel themselves the odd men out, and also must have an impression that no one cares a tinker's cuss for them.
That is an attitude which should not be permitted. In all the regions services should be such that waiting lists would be curtailed and kept to an absolute minimum. Of course, the answer to the problem is the building of more hospitals. It is said that that cannot be done, but there are building workers out of work. It is a bad form of economy, a bad form of social advancement, that, on the one hand, we should be short of hospitals and, on the other, that we should have out of work the men needed to build the hospitals.
That is undoubtedly the long-term solution, but in the short term it might


be advisable to study the private bed system. I have had the figures given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary, although I do not have them with me at the moment. It might not be as serious as we think, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some assurance that if it is not to be abolished, the private bed system will be reduced so as to make way for those people who have been waiting for beds for many months. I beg him to look into the matter and to give people in the North-East some encouragement, and also to give those who have fallen sick every opportunity to regain their health and vigour.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on introducing this subject. I can assure him that much of what he and his colleagues have said about the North-East applies to many other parts of the country, not least to London and its environs. In considering this matter we must realise that the present form of the National Health Service—especially the hospital service—is quite inadequate to meet the needs of a growing population, especially one the average age of which is rapidly increasing. Unless the Government tackle this question so as to meet modern needs we shall always be having the sort of complaints that have been raised tonight.
We must also remember that the Government's policy has been responsible for reducing much of the expenditure of regional hospital boards in the past few years. Many extensions and developments which hospital boards would otherwise have carried out have had to be halted or suspended for the time being. That has created a growing problem of waiting lists in most hospitals.
We must also consider the question of the out-patients' service at some hospitals. Some people may consider that it does not matter if out-patients have to wait for hours before being treated in hospital. I know that they are very grateful to receive hospital treatment, but much remains to be done to cut down unnecessary waiting and delay in many of our great hospitals. One of the reasons why I was attracted to this debate was that I recently heard about an elderly lady who was called to attend at a private house to

certify a patient who was mentally unstable so that the patient could be taken away. This happened at night, and when the lady left the house she fell over some bricks which had been moved from their previous position, against the gateway, into the centre of the path. In falling, she injured her ankle.
The lady was sent by her doctor to the out-patients' department of the local hospital for an X-ray, but the hospital authorities refused to to take an X-ray photograph because some formality had not been gone through. She was, therefore, sent back home and was later again taken to hospital for an X-ray examination. She was collected by ambulance at about 9·15 a.m. and she did not get back until 2 o'clock. The whole process took five hours.
That sort of thing is not good enough. I wonder how many similar cases have occurred. We have all had complaints about the appalling delays at outpatients' departments, which have meant that out-patients have had to wait for long periods. The system needs to be reorganised. Much more could be done by co-operation between the hospital boards and the local county health authorities. The pressure on hospitals could be relieved by the establishment of more local health centres, serviced by specialists who could attend at outpatients' departments and could visit smaller buildings, where the problem of administration would not be so great as in very large hospitals.
My hon. Friend made a passing reference to the geriatric clinics—presumably those to be organised and run mainly by the county health authorities. If there were closer co-operation between the regional hospital boards and the county health authorities a series of geriatric clinics could be set up mainly to advise elderly people. This would relieve some of the pressure on the hospitals. Often the patients would not have so far to go, and interviews and appointments could be more easily arranged. It would be necessary for the Health Service to have additional staff in the way of health visitors. Much could be done by decentralising. Many of the cases which now have to go to hospital for treatment could be dealt with at local health centres and geriatric clinics.
The Minister will probably say that we want more doctors if this is to be done, but if he will study the Willink Report, which was published recently, he will see that it predicts that by 1961 we shall have a surplus of 10 per cent. of qualified medical men and women ready to engage in practice. If that Report is substantially correct it would seem that there is room for an expansion in the consultant service by way of more and better geriatric clinics and the establishment of more local health centres to which minor cases could be sent for consultation and treatment. So, through the geriatric clinics and the local health centres, the patients could, as it were, gravitate to the hospital when their complaint was such that only hospital treatment was adequate.
With the increase in the number of aged members of the population, inevitably greater demands will be made on the National Health Service because older people need more medical attention, advice and treatment than younger people do. Some people argue that additional specialist hospitals are needed and in some areas there are annexes to general hospitals where elderly people receive attention, especially the chronic sick. It is also argued that it is a bad thing to segregate aged patients and that they should be mixed with other patients in the general wards of hospitals. There is much to be said for both points of view. But if we are to reduce the waiting lists and provide better treatment and accommodation, we must provide more buildings in which specialist treatment can be undertaken.
I hope that the Ministry will investigate the possibility of meeting this urgent need to provide adequate facilities for the whole country. It will mean spending more money on the Health Service, but the health of the people is of paramount importance and the time has come when the question of reorganisation should be examined. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will put up a fight for a better Health Service, and for the provision of increasing facilities for treatment, they will earn the gratitude of the House and the country.
The Parliamentary Secretary should urge his right hon. Friend to see that

there is closer co-operation between regional hospital boards, hospital management committees and the county health committees, so that more duties and responsibilities may be undertaken by the county health committees. It is a matter which affects many regions and it is only in this House that we can ensure that anything of a lasting value is achieved.

8.15 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Every hon. Member of this House is familiar with the Questions which appear on the Order Paper, put down by hon. Members from both sides of the House, on the subject of hospital waiting lists. Today there was a Question on the Order Paper about waiting lists in the Birmingham area. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the North-East region have put down similar Questions time after time. On Monday afternoons we have asked the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary what they propose to do about this problem We have received evasive Answers: we have received sympathy; we have been told that they understand the problem and that they will expedite measures to relieve it—yet nothing has been done.
Weeks and months have passed, and out of courtesy to Mr. Speaker and to other hon. Members we have not followed up these Questions with more and more supplementary questions. This debate provides me with an opportunity to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give details about what is meant by the kind of replies which we have received to our Questions. On looking through the information contained in the Answers to those Questions I am shocked at the evasion of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on this point.
Tonight we have discussed the problem in the north-east region and it is interesting to realise that conditions there are a reflection of the conditions which exist in other regions. It is important to break down these waiting lists to discover what categories of patients need treatment. Apparently some patients who are awaiting treatment are suffering from complaints which call for the attention of a general surgeon. Others are suffering from ear, nose and throat complaints, and I am glad to know that attention is being


given to the problem that arises there. There are also women suffering from gynaecological complaints or from some orthopaedic condition.
The interesting fact is that on those occasions when I have asked the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary for figures relating to the Midlands or the North I have been presented with precisely the same picture. I was told on one occasion, in relation to a waiting list of many thousands, that I must realise that many of the people were suffering from a chronic condition, the implication being that it did not matter that they had to wait. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he feels about this and why such answers should be given to me.
Let us be practical and realistic. When one refers to the chronic surgical condition of a waiting patient, and it is implied that hon. Members must not be overwhelmed by the long lists of such patients awaiting treatment, as a doctor one thinks of a man with a hernia or a woman with a prolapsed womb. I regard it as absolutely inhuman to say that a worker suffering from these conditions should be expected to go on working. A man with hernia is supposed to carry on, standing about for hours probably in a job which involves a great deal of strain. A woman with prolapse is also expected to carry on. "It is a chronic condition", say the authorities." They look all right", they say, and so these people have to stand for many hours doing their jobs, although their condition is such that the job necessitates weariness and exhaustion. More rest is called for, but is not available.
These are known as chronic conditions. Therefore, when many thousands of people are waiting in one area the Opposition are regarded as a little difficult when we press for an answer why action has not been taken about them. Any patient who has his condition diagnosed, whether as acute or chronic, must suffer mental stress until he is receiving treatment and his operation is over. It is not easy for a man and woman worker to plan their household arrangements during the period of the operation, and this involves again a mental stress. When I hear about these long waiting lists of many thousands I do not divide them into two categories and say that some are very urgent and that we need not worry too much about the others.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the Question on the Order Paper today, in the name of one of my hon. Friends from Birmingham, to which I have referred, he will see something which has been mentioned in some of our speeches tonight, which is that admission to a hospital can be expedited by payment of a fee. I have observed this, particularly in the northern area. Indeed, when I was in Bolton last week a question was put to me by a woman in the audience whether I knew that it was accepted in that area that a private fee should be paid in order to expedite admission to a local hospital.
That is being said too often. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is making detailed notes of these points. Perhaps he might attend to me just for one moment. He has had months to do his homework on this question because he has been asked about it time after time, and he should not have to come here to study his notes while questions are being put to him. He should be familiar with the subject, have concentrated upon it, and he should have come to the debate tonight feeling a certain shame that he has been called here to answer something which he should have been prepared to answer many times. He should be familiar with his notes and not have to be studying them at the last moment on a human problem which should affect his heart as well as his mind.
I ask him for a detailed answer, whether the payment of a fee for admission is widespread and whether he will say that this is an abuse of the National Health Service. He must have answered the Question which was on the Order Paper. He has probably given a Written Answer. We should like to hear what the Answer to Question 22 today was, because it is on this very problem.
My hon. Friends and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) have said that in the northern area the number of beds per thousand of the population is smaller than in the South. Is that allegation correct and, if so, why is the North not treated as fairly as the South.
I want to ask another question, to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer specifically. If there is a shortage of surgeons in the North for general


surgery and of gynæcologists, why is it? Is it because of an actual shortage of surgeons, or of a shortage of operating facilities? By answering those questions the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the question about waiting lists in other parts of the country where general surgery, ear, nose and throat treatment and gynaecology have been particularly mentioned in regard to waiting lists.
On the subject of establishment, we should like to hear just how hospital establishments are planned. How is it that hon. Members come here and allege that there is a difference in areas? Why is there what appears to be a rather haphazard approach to this question? Furthermore, when I suggested to the Minister many months ago that he should consider a more flexible arrangement where there was a large waiting list of surgical patients at one hospital, and that such patients might be transferred to a hospital where there was not such a large waiting list, the Parliamentary Secretary told me that he would consider the problem and let me know. Perhaps he will let me know tonight whether that flexible arrangement is or is not practicable.
In the London area, waiting lists are not so large. The people of the North are more patient and long-suffering than people in the South, and their patience and long-suffering seem to be a little disregarded. They should sometimes have more consideration, having regard to the industrial conditions and more severe climatic conditions of the North. From the morbidity and mortality statistics of chest diseases, for instance, we find that the North suffers infinitely more than the South and yet it is necessary for this debate to be held and for the Minister to come here to explain why the north-east region has to suffer in this way, although it makes such an important contribution to the country's production.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to these points, which are of a practical nature. If they were examined and action taken, the problem could be solved. I hope that as a result of the debate hon. Members will feel that some of their problems have been answered and that in future it will not be necessary to put so many Questions to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.

8.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): We have had a useful debate concerning hospital problems and, in particular, the waiting list problem of the Newcastle area. I wish to say at the outset that the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board is not in a particularly unusual position as regards the length of its waking lists. In fact, it is above the average —I was glad that several hon. Members agreed about this—in its attempts to deal with the problem.
I think that that is particularly commendable because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) observed, at the start of the National Health Service scheme the Board inherited rather poor hospital facilities, poorer in many respects than those in other areas. I can confirm that the record of the Board in this matter has been good. Nothing that has been said in this debate should be taken as in any way impugning that.
The total number of patients waiting in the area related to hospital facilities available is virtually identical with the national average. That does not mean that we are complacent about it at all, but it does mean that this area is not actually worse off, as has been suggested.

Mr. Sparks: Now that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, is there any way in which he can convey to us what is the national average?

Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Member will refer to some of the Questions and Answers which form the background of this debate, he will find that it has been given. If not, I shall be glad to let him have it.

Dr. Summerskill: Surely the hon. Gentleman can give the national average when apparently he is hingeing the whole of his reply to the debate on it?

Mr. Thompson: It has been stated in Parliament, but perhaps before the end of the debate I may refresh my memory on it. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) rightly observed, the figures themselves can be misleading in suggesting that the hospital service is deficient. I do not say that they are necessarily misleading, but they can be.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I pointed out that they could be misleading both ways. They can suggest that there is not a problem when there certainly is, as well as suggesting what the hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Mr. Thompson: I do not think there is anything between us on that. The point is that we cannot entirely rely on the figures. Some duplication of entries is unavoidable, as I am sure the hon. Member will recognise. Then there is the difficulty in all regions of keeping the lists up to date. The reason for waiting lists is not always a lack of beds. The hon. Member referred to plastic surgery patients whose treatment is often staged over a long period during which, although they are in receipt of treatment, they may be on the waiting list. Some forms of treatment cannot be given until the physical condition of the patient improves. Minor indispositions which patients may have while on the waiting list can prevent them from being admit-led for an operation when their turn arrives. All these considerations have to be taken into account.
What we are concerned with mainly this evening is, where genuine shortcomings exist, what types of remedial action are open to us. In referring to remedial action, I am excluding for the moment administrative measures. I want to take the matter a stage beyond that.
There are two courses open. The first is to increase the consultant establishment and the second is to improve and increase the buildings in which treatment can be given, which is another way of saying to provide more hospital beds. As the hon. Member said, the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board increased its number of specialists from 164 to 409 between 1948 and 1957. That was a very considerable increase. I agree with him that it has tapered off in the latter part of the period, but my right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to look at proposals emanating from the Regional Board in this connection and to give them most careful consideration.
On the question of new buildings there is a great deal to be said. The Newcastle region entered the National Health Service relatively handicapped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth

explained, because its hospital facilities were limited and sometimes below acceptable standards. Allowance has been made for this factor when distributing capital money. This Regional Board has always had more than its share, if that share is reckoned on a strict population basis. Hon. Members from the area will be glad to know that.
Including the two new centrally financed schemes announced on 17th December, nine building schemes to the value of £11 million have been contained in the centrally financed programme, including one scheme at the Newcastle teaching hospital. A sum of £8½ million has already been spent on capital works in the region since the start of the National Health Service, and the total waiting list has been reduced from 32,000, its peak figure, in 1953, to about 27,300 at the end of 1958. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East that there has been some fluctuation in these figures, but, on the whole, I feel that this is marginal and is under control, and as these new facilities come into operation I feel that the picture will progressively improve.
In the regional board waiting list three areas are mainly affected—Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Cumberland. I recognise the particular situation of Newcastle, because with one-tenth of the population it has one-fifth of the total waiting list. This is partly due to the concentration in Newcastle of all regional plastic surgery work, but Newcastle has had five of the area's ten major centrally financed schemes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There are plastic surgery units outside Newcastle.

Mr. Thompson: I feel obliged to include Middlesbrough and Cumberland, because we are discussing the Regional Board area. They will both benefit soon from brand new hospitals. Cumberland will benefit from that at Hensingham, now being built on the West Coast, while the Tees-side area is to have a new hospital north of the river. I am glad to give this information to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater), because this is one of the schemes about which he asked me. If he would like to know a little more about the progress of the scheme I can tell him that the Board has been asked to complete the planning for it by 1960–61.
The other hospital to which he referred is Aycliffe, and here I cannot give him the same encouraging reply because, as he well knows, Aycliffe is a new town and at present the population is very small. That does not mean that it will not grow, but he will agree with me that on the basis of population alone there are more urgent problems to be dealt with, although we shall not overlook Aycliffe.
The effect of the new building will be felt over a wide area, with the result that pressure at East Cumberland, particularly in Carlisle, will be relieved by the absence of patients from the West, and similarly the Middlesbrough waiting list should shorten when patients from the industrial area to the north have their own hospital.
May I turn to the waiting list of the teaching hospital? There was some reference to that in the debate. The problem here is mostly confined to Newcastle itself and surrounding areas. As I suggested earlier, it is difficult to know precisely how much the waiting list contains duplications. The teaching hospital is constantly engaged in improving its facilities, and the House may know that work is soon to start on a new boilerhouse and plans are being prepared for a new out-patients' department, which might rejoice the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). Although he is not a Member for that area, he referred to it in his speech. In addition to this, an annual capital budget of about £75,000 is being used to enlarge wards, provide additional operating facilities, and so on.
May I say something about the specialties which are particularly involved. General surgery affects the largest number of patients, approximately one-third of the whole regional total. It has been the policy of the regional board to provide additional operating theatres, which answers one of the questions which I have been asked. New theatres are to be opened shortly at South Shields General, Bensham General, near Gateshead, and Darlington Memorial Hospitals. Ashington Hospital, north of Newcastle, already has a new theatre. Work is now to start on another at Sunderland. The picture in relation to operating theatres is quite an encouraging one.
Many patients on the list are suffering from relatively minor ailments, but all

medically urgent cases—and doctors and consultants must surely be the judge of urgency—are dealt with immediately. The list at the teaching hospital decreased by more than 10 per cent. in 1958, the whole of the decrease being among those who had been on that portion of the waiting list which is four months and longer. The board of governors is now engaged on providing additional operating facilities.
The next in importance of the specialties, from the point of view of length of time of waiting, is orthopaedic surgery. An additional specialist has recently been appointed in East Cumberland and by reorganisation, 25 extra beds provided at Cumberland Infirmary. Tees-side, which is the next most important area, will in a few months commence to use a new orthopaedic and accident wing at Middlesbrough General Hospital, which will certainly have the effect of relieving the position. With this general end in view, it is proposed within the next twelve months to appoint an additional consultant at Darlington.
Gynaecology is the next problem and is the biggest problem in the Newcastle area. The hon. Member and I have had correspondence about this. The urgency of this situation is fully recognised by the Regional Board, which is paying special attention to it at this time and hopes to provide additional accommodation.
Neurosurgery and urology are almost exclusively a Newcastle problem, and new units for both are to be provided by the Regional Hospital Board. The urology unit will be completed late next year and the neurosurgery unit, which is a centrally financed scheme, is to be started within the next few months.

Dr. Summerskill: The Parliamentary Secretary said that gynaecology is the greatest problem. What did he say will be done immediately?

Mr. Thompson: I think that the right hon. Lady confused the last point I made with the one immediately before it. The one immediately before it referred to gynaecology, and my comment was that the urgency of the situation was appreciated by the regional board, which hoped to be able to provide additional accommodation soon—

Dr. Summerskill: Really, this is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman admits here that the gynaecological waiting list is one of the greatest problems, but he simply says, "We hope to do something about it." He has said that before on many occasions, when Questions have been asked about out-patients. Surely, this is the opportunity—on the Adjournment debate—to tell the House specifically whether the intention is to appoint more surgeons, and to deal with the subject in a special way. Is the intention to send cases elsewhere? If so, will the Parliamentary Secretary specify the hospitals to which the cases will be sent? How does he intend to deal with the situation? We have not come here tonight just to be told again that something is to be done.

Mr. Thompson: I have been giving the right hon. Lady a quite detailed account of the various measures being taken to deal with waiting lists in the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board's area. I said that the gynaecological speciality was being investigated as a matter of urgency by the Board. It is the Board that has the first responsibility in this. It has the problem immediately on its doorstep, and the first measures must come from it. We will give it all the support we can in carrying those through, but the first measures, the proposals, must come from the Board.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is very important. I am rather disappointed with what I have just heard. I understood that, in fact, the board was opening some 24 new beds in, perhaps, a week or two. If that is not absolutely decided now, I am disappointed. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman now says does not mean that the board has gone back on what I believed it was to do. I understood that the small Walker Accident Hospital was to be converted in order to deal with this class of case.

Mr. Thompson: I have no reason to suppose that the board has gone back on anything, but I should like to see it formally announced before I say more here.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) laid particular stress on pay beds, and this subject was mentioned by other hon. Members. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no substance in the argument that waiting lists could be re-

duced if all pay beds were transferred to the use of National Health Service patients. On average, pay-beds are now 70 per cent. occupied. In any case, half the patients are National Health Service patients, admitted as urgent cases, or for some special medical reason. If there were no pay-beds, private treatment patients would, no doubt, have to receive equivalent treatment under the National Health Service, and the effect of bringing them on to the waiting list would be to leave the list where it is now.
What, I think the hon. Member wants me to clear up is whether the average of 30 per cent. of unoccupied pay beds could be drawn into the system so as to relieve it in any way. I should like to express the position in real figures, and not as a percentage. The total number of beds involved in this little block is between sixty and seventy, for a population of 3 million—for whom over 27,500 National Health Service beds are available. The addition of this small number of beds to the pool would, clearly, make no practical difference to waiting lists, particularly as most of these beds are in small, scattered groups. But, of course, it would mean a worsening of facilities for emergency cases since it is most important that a small reserve of not permanently occupied beds should exist to be available for sudden admissions if the rest of the hospital is full. That is a very important function which I would not wish to see negatived by any change in policy.

Mr. Grey: Of course, we are all anxious that there should be a few beds in reserve for emergency cases, but I do not agree with the argument that 50 or 60 beds should be kept available. It means that fifty or sixty people out of a population of 3 million could use those beds, and that is very important.

Mr. Thompson: We must probably agree to differ about that. My point is that if we added these sixty or seventy beds to the pool we would lose that valuable emergency capacity, and we must weigh that against doing what the hon. Gentleman would like us to do.

Mr. Slater: Is not the hon. Gentleman missing the point that priority is given to people who are in a position to pay, as against some of the more important cases who are in need of attention but who are not able to pay?

Mr. Thompson: I would not accept that over the country as a whole the existence of pay beds means that National Health Service patients who are in urgent need of a hospital bed are denied it.
May I now say a word about outpatients. The complaint is that teaching hospital patients must wait six or more weeks before getting an out-patient appointment. The complaint came from general practitioners in the Northumberland area and has been discussed in great detail by the board of governors and the executive council. I believe this was one of the points in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I am very glad to give her and other hon. Members who referred to this matter a fairly detailed account of what has happened.
A meeting has now been held between the Northumberland Executive Council and the teaching hospital about this complaint from general practitioners about the delay experienced by their patients in getting out-patient appointments. It was explained to the executive council that some of the difficulties arose from temporary causes. For instance, there had been a shortage of registrars. This has now been put right and, as a result, the exceptional delay in surgery clinics has been reduced. To some extent, however, there is a long-term problem in that general practitioners have a preference for sending patients to the teaching hospital which, as a result, has an abnormally heavy out-patient load.
The executive council accepted this point and has undertaken to point it out to the doctors. My information is that the meeting ended on a very friendly note, and there is no reason to suppose that the general practitioners in the area are unduly concerned about this now that the matter has been made clearer to them. The teaching hospital, for its part, has undertaken to continue with its work of reviewing out-patient arrangements and dealing with other difficulties. The teaching hospital is most anxious to make it clear that whatever delays there may be they do not affect urgent cases. This point was explained to the executive council which was asked to remind doctors of the importance of telling hospital authorities whenever there is some degree of urgency which ought to affect the speed of making an appoint-

ment. I take the view that this matter must be solved locally by good cooperation between the board and the executive council. In the meantime, the board is increasing the out-patient facilities, and the number of out-patient clinics held annually has risen in the last five years by 400.
The board of governors emphatically reject the complaint—and this is in reply to the question I was asked—that consultants will arrange National Health Service in-patient treatment for their private patients without putting them on the normal waiting list. The Board says, and it is very definite on this point, that it has no evidence of this, and that it is very distressed at such an allegation being levelled against its consultants. Certainly patients can see consultants privately without difficulty, but if they then require admission as National Health Service patients they will take their places in the regular queue.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East made some reference towards the end of his speech to the question of some special kind of survey, and, indeed, he referred to it in a Question some little time ago. I am frankly doubtful if such a survey would throw up anything new, because, as I told the hon. Gentleman in reply to his Question, it is not necessary to stimulate boards in this way to extend and improve their services. Certainly nothing that I know of would justify singling out Newcastle for such an inquiry.
It is true that an inquiry on these lines was carried out in Cardiff in 1954, and I see that the hon. Member has his copy of the report, as I have mine. It is an interesting document, and I refreshed my memory of some of the details of the main conclusions and recommendations before coming to this debate. I think some of the conclusions probably have a national and not merely a local application. Of course, it is open to the regional board or to the board of governors to make this kind of inquiry on its own if it wants to, and, having regard to the fact that this is a progressive body, I think that if the board felt that there was value in it, it would have done it before now.
In conclusion, I should like to make the point that the capital allocation of


moneys for the hospital services, firstly, in the country as a whole, and, secondly, in the Newcastle area, is certainly not diminishing but rather the reverse under the present Administration. In 1957–58, we had £20 million of capital moneys available for hospital development; in 1958–59, £22 million and in 1960–61, a total of £25½ million has already been announced. Newcastle's share of this in 1959–60 and in 1960–61 will be approximately £2 million, and, when we think of these considerable sums of money and the fact—

Mr. Grey: Can the hon. Gentleman say how that compares with other regions in the country?

Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to break down the figures for the country as a whole for him, I will certainly do so, or he may wish to put down a Question about them, but, in the earlier part of my speech, I pointed out—and I think he probably may have overlooked it—that we have taken into account the fact that Newcastle started off these hospital facilities relatively handicapped and in making our allocations to that region we have allowed for that situation. I think that that really answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Grey: I will put down a Question about it. There is the question whether we are being given a proper share or whether it is being left to us to do something about it.

Dame Irene Ward: It would be interesting if my hon. Friend could give us the figures, but am I not right in saying that the last report of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board for the first time for a number of years did not refer to the fact that it was behind in capital allocation? In other words, is not it fair to say that the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board thought that some effort had been made? For my part, of course, I am never satisfied.

Mr. Thompson: That is a very commendable attitude for any constituency Member, and hon. Members who have spoken for this part of the world during our debate this evening have shown that they have caught that healthy contagion from my hon. Friend.
I hope that what I have said will indicate that very great progress is being made in this region. It is not being starved of money. The many projects to which I have referred, which are going on now, will have the effect soon, I am confident, of providing the better and more comprehensive service which is what we all desire to see.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the other points which have been made during the debate. I understand that he could not answer them all now. Particularly, I want him to consider looking at the whole waiting list problem and trying to give, let us say, a new sense of urgency and drive, not only in relation to what can be done in the hospitals themselves, but also along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who spoke of what the general practitioner service, properly organised, might be able to do towards alleviating some of the hospital waiting list difficulties. I want the Minister to bear in mind also the position of the local health authority. We need a joint campaign in order to overcome the problem.
During the course of the debate, we have asked what is the national average for waiting lists to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and we have not had an answer. He told us that Newcastle is no worse off than other areas. So much the worse for the country as a whole.

Mr. Thompson: About 1 per of the population.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Nine o'clock.